Subject: RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID

From: "Shaun Bryant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:09:27 -0600

One additional point to this, for those in the "it's just a fax" camp;
Look at it this way.

Microsoft will get to know who all of your customers whom you give the
right to sublicense your technology, if those customers are to use your
Sender-ID implementation as bundled into your MTA. There's no prevision
preventing Microsoft from using that information to promote its own
technology   solution to your customers.

Just my 2 cents.

Shaun

--------------
Shaun Bryant
Director of Threat Management
720-895-5710 Direct
303-908-5073 Cell
303-221-4930 Fax
877-695-6442 Toll Free
[email-masked]
 
Your first line of email defense
http://www.mxlogic.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hadmut Danisch
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 06:45
To: Jonathan Gardner
Cc: IETF MARID WG
Subject: Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

Interesting point, I agree with you.

And you gave me some inspiration:

Is it possible that this all was meant as an attack
against the Linux/GPL-World? That this was meant to 
undermine the GPL-based Linux distributions and to 
abuse a technology, which would surely be deployed
very fast and widely, everyone would have to use it, 
to piggyback some anti-GPL-antidote, to start softening
the pure-GPL world? 

Just a thought... 

regards
Hadmut

---

From: "Harold A'Hole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:00:13 -0700

> technology   solution to your customers.

Nobody ever says why MSFT would prosecute someone who didn't have the
license.  In court, it would be pointed out:

* MSFT does not charge anything for the license, so its damages would be
non-existent
* MSFT gives the technology away freely to those who send in a fax
* MSFT clearly intended it to be royalty free as it was given over to an
international standards body

So in court they'd have to show why a particular user who hadn't sent in a
fax should be prosecuted?  They would have to show harm done to them.  It
could easily be remedied by sending in the fax or by no longer using the
code.  MSFT would be a pariah for such an attack.  They already have
monopoly issues, and spending good money to prosecute over a free license is
simply absurd.  The fear is just fear mongering, like worrying that the U.S.
will turn its military against its own citizens.  It could happen, but it
won't because it's politically untenable and legally weak.

Harry

---

From: "Michel Bouissou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 18:17:02 +0200 (CEST)

Harold A'Hole a écrit :
> license.  In court, it would be pointed out: [...]

> fax should be prosecuted?  They would have to show harm done to them. [...]

The problem is that a standard cannot be decided based on "woulds",
"shoulds" or suppositions... It must be based on facts. What is in written
in the license is facts, and makes it unacceptable for a large part of the
Internet community. The past behaviour of a given company is facts. The
rest are just suppositions.

> MSFT would be a pariah for such an attack.

Aren't they already ? I may have been misinformed ;-)

> They already have monopoly issues, and spending good money to prosecute
> over a free license is simply absurd.  The fear is just fear mongering,
> like worrying that the U.S. will turn its military against its own
> citizens.  It could happen, but it won't because it's politically
> untenable and legally weak.

Well, the fact that the U.S. would use its military to bomb and invade a
foreign country that hadn't attacked them and didn't represent any threat
to them, giving big lies to the world about the reasons by the voice of
the U.S. govt would have seemed "politically untenable and legally weak",
as you say.

Know what ? It happened. And they're still there.

But I believe this is quickly drifting out of the topic of this list, so I
apologize in advance for this drift -- just answering your statement.

-- 
Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E

 Aurais-je manque une loi permettant a n'iumporte que CON (excusez moi,
 mais je vois pas d'autre terme) à salir et à insulter les marques des
 sociétés connues ?
 -+- JD-P in NPC : Dura lex basta crapoto, et que ça saute ! -+-

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:45:09 -0400

> won't because it's politically untenable and legally weak.

While all of that may be true, what matters is what implementors think. 
If the entire licensing issue muddles the waters to a point where 
significant deployment problems will occur, it is something we should 
take into consideration.

Yakov