Subject: In support of Sender ID

From: "Leon Rishniw" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:33:40 -0700

As a supporter of both commercial and opensource software models,
Cloudmark does not see any issue with the Sender ID IPR license with
regard to implemention or redistribution of Sender ID in its commercial
products.  Cloudmark intends to implement and support all popular
authentication schemes, including Sender ID, SPF and other variants.

We are satisfied that Microsoft has extended coverage in the agreement
to all Microsoft IPR that is relevant to the implementation of Sender
ID. Additionally, the reciprocal license issue is limited to IPR related
to Sender ID, which is sufficiently restricted for our needs.

-leon
 
--
Leon Rishniw
Cloudmark, Inc.
415-543-1220
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:20:16 -0500

[Mark C. Langston]
>So you'll be okay with all those people speaking up for their
>organizations, stating that their organizations won't be implementing
>it?

Of course. I think it's valuable for people to say here, "I don't
support SenderID because my org feels they cannot implement it". 

Isn't that what this voting process all about? Approval or disapproval
should still be taken as your personal opinion, but one of your
motivations is the applicability of the standard to your organization.

>Fair enough.  The SETI Institute won't be implementing Sender-ID.

Noted.

--
Ryan

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:03:42 -0700

Couple concise thoughts if I may:

	I think I'd rather have someone say what their intent is, rather
than hammering away and not disclosing their rationale/motivation. That
being said Of course I DON'T want to see those posts either, you just
haven't considered the parallel to it.......

	If you're going to take this tack then people shouldn't mention
their open source licenses and how microsoft's IPR is incompatible, because
that is just the analogue. Of course in this arena championing open source
is much more "Politically Correct" if you will, and this bias slips into a
LOT of peoples posts. I've seen QUITE a few posts saying "we can't do this
because MS IPR etc etc etc".

	Personally I don't think anything but technical issues should be
discussed. IF IPR ends up being an issue than this will NEVER become an
official standard as wide depolyment is requisite for that. If it doesn't
GREAT!

	Probably the best reason I can think of to limit this to technical
discussion is that listening to lawyers is a waste of our time (no offense
legal folk... Err....) , when this IS in fact a technical discussion. If
lawyers actually agreed on things then we'd not have judges or a legal
system. We should relish the fact that we operate in an area in which
objective points can be raised, evaluated and implemented.

So in summary:
-No "This is good for our business"
-No "this doesn't fit into our licensing scheme"
-No "Microsoft is the devil"
-No "Open source is the wave of the future"

	Let's talk about the issue we are here for, and stop treating this
like it's 5th grade elections as we try to champion our personal cause. 

	WHAT is going to solve the issue. HOW and WHY or WHY NOT.

Just my PERSONAL opinion on what we should be discussing. I hope I didn't
reveal any inclinations in supporting any of the periperhal issues, and if I
did it was unintentional. Let's get down to business!

-Tom 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Mark C. Langston
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: In support of Sender ID

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.

-- 
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