Subject: RE: In support of SenderID

From: "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:09:27 -0500

I also support SenderID. 

I do not believe the IP issues regarding the PRA algorithm are
unsolvable; either the MS license can be changed to facilitate OSS
deployment, or a nonincumbered algorithm with similar effectiveness to
PRA can be found and substitiuted.

RFC-2822 authentication is my organization's primary need (and that of
our customers: banks). Sender ID solves this problem more neatly than
other solutions I have seen proposed in MARID. SPFv1 does not address
RFC-2822 authentication at all, and is therefore only marginally useful
to my organization.

Ryan Malayter
Bank Administration Institute
Chicago, Illinois, USA

---

From: "Chris Haynes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:55:50 +0100

"Ryan Malayter" confused my by declaring:

> deployment, or a nonincumbered algorithm with similar effectiveness 
> to PRA can be found and substitiuted.
<snip>

Er, Ryan,

This is the 'final call' on the tabled Sender-ID drafts.

The licence IS what Microsoft says it is, the algorithm IS the encumbered PRA.

The chairs have another three days or so in which to judge the concensus.

I can't work out if you for or against these specific drafts. 

Chris Haynes

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:01:07 -0500

In <[email-masked]> "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]> writes:

> deployment, or [....]

This makes no sense.

There is *zero* reason to believe that if MS wins IETF approval of the
current license that they will change later on.  MS has been under a
lot of preasure for months and they really have barely budged on the
critical issues even when it is clear they risk getting approval.

> [...]       or a nonincumbered algorithm with similar effectiveness to

What you are saying here is that we wouldn't be accepting SenderID!

So, if you are willing to accept something other than SenderID, why
don't you demand a better license *before* it gets approved?

-wayne