Subject: RE: Enough RE: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:08:41 -0800

> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> If we standardize a technology, we are saying that technology 
> solves some problem. and that its usage has well understood 
> and accepted consequences.

Ergo since Microsoft and many others have already said they are going to
be using PRA type techniques it follows that they had better be
described so that the expectations of the legitimate senders are met.

The point I am making here is that nothing that the IETF can do will
create a situation where the sender of an email will be able to ensure
that recipients do not filter the email using a particular technology.

> So it is entirely appropriate to consider the effects on 
> senderds of spam filtering technology.  Does the technology 
> have an unacceptably high false positive rate?  Does the 
> technology adversly effect business models or classes of 
> users in ways we find unacceptable?
> Does the technology impose and unreasonable load on senders?

So document it. My concern was that the appeal is simply rehashing the
IPR issue ad-naueam and provides no value.

> The receiver can do whatever they like.  The sender has no rights.
> However, people expect us to publish standards that make 
> sense and produce a working Internet when used.  So we're 
> going to consider these issues when we evaluate standards.  
> They like everything else we do will be a matter of rough 
> consensus.  If you want to ignore the implications of your 
> work on the broader Internet and on both senders and 
> recipients, then perhaps the IETF is the wrong place for you 
> to do your work.

There are legitimate concerns and unhelpful concerns. In the case of
MARID the real root of the complaint is the IPR terms under which the
PRA technology was offered. Despite the fact that the IETF has accepted
many similar licenses certain people decided they had an opportunity to
re-open a battle they had lost in W3C.

In the case of spam filtering I would hazard a guess that every
imaginable technique is claimed in at least a dozen current patent
applications and that at least a quarter of them will be granted. So
getting upset about this one particular technique that has been offered
on open terms because they are asserted to be not quite open enough is a
bit pointless.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:26:46 -0500

> described so that the expectations of the legitimate senders are met.

No, it doesn't follow.  IETF's job is not to ensure that arbitrary
expectations of email senders (or of domains claiming to represent
those senders) are met.

> that recipients do not filter the email using a particular technology.

True.  Recipients (or parties claiming to act on their behalf, with or
without informed consent of the actual recipients) are already
filtering mail using a variety of (usually ill-chosen) technologies. 

However that doesn't mean that IETF should necessarily endorse, or even
document, any of these technologies.    Sometimes it's a disservice to
the community to document a bad idea.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:39:37 -0500

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> The point I am making here is that nothing that the IETF can do
    >> will create a situation where the sender of an email will be
    >> able to ensure that recipients do not filter the email using a
    >> particular technology.

    Keith> True.  Recipients (or parties claiming to act on their
    Keith> behalf, with or without informed consent of the actual
    Keith> recipients) are already filtering mail using a variety of
    Keith> (usually ill-chosen) technologies.

    Keith> However that doesn't mean that IETF should necessarily
    Keith> endorse, or even document, any of these technologies.
    Keith> Sometimes it's a disservice to the community to document a
    Keith> bad idea.

I'm from the school that believes documenting existing behavior is
always good.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:46:08 -0500

> I'm from the school that believes documenting existing behavior is

well, if you can document the actual effects of the behavior, it might
be a good thing.  but political constraints make this difficult.  if
the political constraints are such that you can only say good things
about a bad idea, it's better to say nothing at all.

Keith