[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 23.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent > > > it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control > > > of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dignaled that it > > > will do nothing to oppose or prevent these outcomes. > > > > How so Eric? Could you give an example of potential weakness in the > > IETF process that could be exploited? So perhaps we could start > > patching? How would such a patent based denial of service attack scenario > > play out? > > Watch what happens with anti-spam "standards" in the next nine months. > I fear it's not going to be pretty. So ... do we actually need one in the first place? I'm certainly unconvinced of that. And from all I heard, SPF is certainly *not* something I like; the basic idea seems fundamentally flawed to me, and AFAICT that is the same idea as is behind SenderID. MfG Kai _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
