Subject: RE: In support of Sender ID

From: "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:16:44 -0500

[Mark C. Langston]
> Could we perhaps dispense with the corporate (particularly executive)
> endorsement posts for Sender-ID?  I thought people in the IETF
> represented themselves.  The few times I've seen products 
> mentioned, it was by the /developers/ of said products.
> 

We are all posting as individuals, except perhaps for "AccuSpam", which
seems to be both a company and a person. If someone supports their
organization's position on the Sender ID proposal, it is a somehow less
valid endorsement? Even if they - horror of horrors - support SenderID
as an individual BECAUSE their organization supports it?

Obviously, you've got your knickers in a twist because these posters
disagree with you. These posters are not violating any of the rules of
this forum, as far as I can tell.

---

From: "Mark C. Langston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:25:48 -0700

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 12:16:44PM -0500, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> We are all posting as individuals

I quote from the most recent instance of this behavior, to which I
responded:

"As a supporter of both commercial and opensource software models,
Cloudmark does not see any issue with the Sender ID IPR license with"

US corporate law not withstanding, Cloudmark is not an individual.

-- 
Mark C. Langston            GOSSiP Project          Sr. Unix SysAdmin
[email-masked]   http://sufficiently-advanced.net    [email-masked]
Systems & Network Admin      Distributed               SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org       E-mail Reputation       http://www.seti.org

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:53:59 -0400

> this forum, as far as I can tell.

They are providing information on potential deployment. I find that 
information valuable.

Also, lets not lose sight of the fact that all these various people and 
companies are actually agreeing to deploy Sender-ID. That is a big 
accomplishment for something that isn't even a standard yet.

Yakov

---

From: "Mark C. Langston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:51:29 -0700

> accomplishment for something that isn't even a standard yet.

I've thought about what you said above, and I agree with it.  I'm afraid
the recent discussions have gotten to me, and without clear focus from
the chairs, it seems to have become an "anything goes" topic.  It is
that to which I was reacting...and reacting poorly.  For that, I
apologize.

However, there's another issue underlying my reaction that I think still
holds water:  I wouldn't want to see the issue clouded by perceived
weight of name, or money, or implied size-of-support, which is what I
think the original IETF dictum regarding individuals was meant to
forestall:  Bob Everyperson saying, "I support/do not support foo" is
viewed -- often subconsciously and erroneously -- as having less weight
in the discussion when Well Known Multinational, Inc. comes in and says
the same thing, even though Mr. Everyperson's argument may be more
technically substantive, or when WKM, Inc. statement is simply one of
support or rejection, no more.

I have every confidence in the chairs that they will not allow such
things to unduly sway their decision with respect to consensus , but
such things nonetheless tend to colour the discussion, often negatively.

I've said my piece, and won't bring the issue up again.

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:42:13 -0400

>US corporate law not withstanding, Cloudmark is not an individual.

Should Cloudmark wish to have its representatives/employees active in the 
IETF explain why they feel Sender ID is the best solution on technical 
merit, that MIGHT be appropriate. The statement posted, however, is NOT 
useful input to the IETF process.

Folks, we ALL want to find a solution to this mess, but there is a REAL 
need to find a solution that can be deployed by all types of organizations 
worldwide. That really implies it needs to be unencumbered to the greatest 
extent possible.

Anyone or any company truly committed to the goal of dealing with spam 
should put that goal ahead of profit or legal protection. I do understand 
defensive patents. They are used acceptably without problematic license 
terms by many.

I will not deploy Sender ID based on the legal issue. Since I happen to run 
a hosting company, it follows that my company also will not deploy the 
technology. As an individual participant in the IETF process, my reasons 
for deploying or not deploying a technology are based on technical merit 
first, and sadly of late on licensing terms for use of the IPR behind that 
technology.

On technology grounds, we are planning to remove all SPF records from 
domains we host, due to significant issues seen with that technology. We do 
not use SPF on incoming mail ourselves to validate anything yet. We have 
had troubles with email delivery that resulted from the presence of SPF 
records, and after analysis are unsure SPF or Sender ID will have a net 
positive impact on the Internet.