Slashdot Mirror
RMS Weighs In On SPF/Sender-ID License
NW writes "In a recent message to the MARID list RMS weighs in on the licensing issues of Sender-ID/SPF and Microsoft:
'Microsoft's Sender-ID license is directly incompatible with free
software regardless of which free software license is used. Free
software means users are free to run it, study and modify the source,
and to redistribute it with or without changes. Free to do so means
there is no requirement to ask or tell anyone that you are doing so.'" "MARID" stands for MTA Authorization Records in DNS; here's the IETF MARID working group's charter. (Read more below.)
Stallman's message continues: "The Microsoft license for Sender-ID directly forbids release of software with all these freedoms, so it is impossible for any program to be free software under Microsoft's regime. I've been expecting to see something like this ever since Gates started talking about spam. This license is an example of Microsoft's strategy for killing off free software as an alternative to Windows. Microsoft first patents something, then incorporates it into a format or protocol, then tries to make it de rigueur while excluding those it wishes to exclude. In the absence of resistance, Microsoft has a good chance of imposing whatever standards it likes. Let us, therefore, resist it here and now."
I've STFC (Scanned the charter) and from what I can gather, it's simply a new record type on the DNS'. Surely the MTA would then query the DNS responsible for the domain for this record, and act accordingly; so what's the problem? I'm sure Sendmail can be made fully capable of this, or any other lookup tool.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
RMS weighs pretty a lot by himself!
The battle lines are drawn. Good vs Evil.
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
So if that's true, how will Mac users or *nix admins in any size company be able to read their E-mails?
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
I'm surprised the author didn't link directly to Microsoft as well...here's the missing link.
"Free software means users are free to run it, study and modify the source, and to redistribute it with or without changes." Strange, I thought free meant you didn't have to pay for it. 'Free' does not necessarily mean open source.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
hello sirs i tagged a hooker from canadia last night and now i am itchy in unpleseant ways!!! please post tips on relief and what i could possibly be infected with. kthxbye
If we let Microsoft, through some machinations during our anti-spam re-engineering or in any other manner, take any measure of control over what has, until now, been an 100% open-standard email infrastructure, email will be fragmented and ultimately ruined, far worse than any cadre of spammers could ruin it.
It is trivial to do what "caller ID" does in an open fashion. And it is absolutely crucial that we do exactly that. No "complicated" licenses, no fancy agreements, no lawyers. Just pick a standard, and follow it.
Letting Microsoft have any involvement in the email infrastructure - other than using it - will be a disaster. And it wll be all the more terrible because of how easily it can be prevented.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Why cant RMS just try to improve the situation, make a counteroffering, give suggestions instead of ranting about everything that is not exactly along his line of view?
IANAL and don't want to be, but I always wondered what were the implications of this RFC (which is about intellectual property rights & IETF publications)
#include "coucou.h"
Newsflash: OSS community dissatisfied with Microsoft's actions. The shock caused by this devastatingly original sentiment is almost immeasurable.
MARID means sick in my language.. so it
does sound funny to me.
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
So, the license RMS is ranting about doesn't apply, and there doesn't appear to be another license on the Microsoft site. Having said that the Microsoft license does not stop the distribution of source, in fact there's a specific clause allowing it (2.2), you just have to include a paragraph in the source code. Nor does RMS say what his problem is, aside from "Grrr, it's Microsoft".
Of course the SPF implementation is still "non-licensed", there's no mention of restrictions, although they do point out there are patents all over the anti-spam arena.
But hey, we don't expect people to look at this stuff, lets just add yet another protocol.
its probably a good thing. If anyone could amend the software, they could, for example, add a section that says 'but accpet all spam.com emails'.
I understood that the protocol was to be made into a standard, so how would changing the software help us?
The Licence (pdf) says that MS grants you a non-transferable licence to use it and sell it on to end-users.
If you do redistribute the source code, its fine, but you must add a clause to your licence that says the software may contain IP owned by MS, and that anyone obtaining such derived source must go ask MS for permission to use their bits directly - you can't give that away.
So I can only surmise that when RMS says it is incompatible with free software, he means the GPL. It is acceptable to use the software, look at it, but you can give it to someone else, but they cannot take away the terms MS set. Sounds a bit like the GPL, but with different terms. (hey RMS, you don't want to agree to those terms, you don't have to use the software).
Here's the link to the page for the actual license agreement in question - click on the "Royalty-Free Caller ID for E-Mail Specification License Agreement" link about halfway down to get the PDF.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
It is absolutely essential that standards like this are open and available to everyone (including microsoft's competition). I haven't read the microsoft license yet, but if it indeed creates any type of obstruction for open-source (or any other) software, it should be soundly rejected.
It isn't clear to me from this story or the comments exactly how Microsoft would claim any type of control here. Can somebody clue me in?
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
Just a little contrast for those who read only one level deep.
Mars
So, we have Microsoft in the distinctly red corner with their proprietary standard.
Let's face it, as vocal as the OSS community is these days, there's not a lot that can be done to stop Microsoft from doing whatever the hell they like, so long as it's legal(!). Sure, sendmail is OSS software, but I got the impression that SPF is pretty much independent of the MTA software anyway.
But, in the blue corner, we have plenty of heavyweight companies who are big on Linux and big on e-mail who have teams of lawyers that have undoutedbly been over this license already, and found the problems.
We have IBM, the people who make Lotus Notes, which is still pretty widely used, IIRC. We have Novell, who now own SuSE/Ximian and are betting the shop on Linux, who produce NetWare. We also have Sun, who are getting vocal on OSS, which produces Solaris, which seems to power a large proportion of MTAs around the globe.
The best defense, surely, is to make sure these companies understand the issues with SPF, and don't implement it in their own products. After all, Microsoft won't get that far without support from other companies, since much as they'd like to, they don't currently control the world's Internet server market....
Too early in the morning I guess... ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
As the inventor, no doubt MS will hold the patent. So you have to license it, whether for GPL or otherwise.
If the license isn't GPL compatible then GPL software can't use it.
See how James Ewing of Sveasoft treats people who follow the GPL!
Posting binaries without source is a violation of the spirit and letter of the GPL. Ewing is right to go after that jerk.
This is RMS we're talking about. The guy that doesn't believe there should be a root user because every user should be "free" to demolish everyone else's boxen. The same guy who doesn't believe in password protecting FTP servers. If we limit anything it won't be "free."
The M$'s contracts are illegal in many countries.
open4free ©
"If you do redistribute the source code, its fine, but you must add a clause to your licence that says the software may contain IP owned by MS, and that anyone obtaining such derived source must go ask MS for permission to use their bits directly - you can't give that away."
Sounds nasty, an obvious play would be to get this non-standard widely accepted then for MS to refuse permission to new licensee's unless they pay a fee.
That would then lock out free software.
Because you need their permission to get the license, they can tack whetever terms onto the deal they like in order for you to obtain that permission.
Another popular trick of MS's is to claim that a new version of software is a different product. They have done this several times, most famously when they said Windows 98 isn't Windows 95.
So you could find that Sendmail future versions get cut out aswell.
Best to avoid this one.
I have personally met several of the Microsoft employees who are doing the work on Sender-ID. I have ever reason to beleive that they are working in good faith to try and make sure this technology can be deployed by everyone, including GPLed software. The problem is that Microsoft is a huge company and things like the licensing issue are handled by Microsoft lawyers, not the people directly involved in SenderID.
I know that the SenderID MS folks are working with MS lawyers, and the MS lawyers are working with lawyers from the FSF, Open Source Initiative (OSI), and IBM (for postfix). The IETF working group co-chair has given MS until early August to get this problem resolved.
Personally, I'm going to give Microsoft lawyers a little more time before I try to outright kill the SenderID RFC.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Finally, now I know what to think about all this.
:P
I was beginning to wonder if I was supposed to think MS had done something right for once...
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
First they helped the spammers to gain e-mail adresses with the numerous Outlook worms. Then they again helped the spammers to send their messages through open IIS and Exchange relays. Now they are trying to take over a part of the internet by excluding the open source world from the protocol modifications that shall solve the problem they caused in the first place.
'Microsoft's Sender-ID license is directly incompatible with free software regardless of which free software license is used.
And that is why it will fail. Only Microsoft would be arrogant enough to try to tell the whole world to use it's closed source method. I would say Microsoft is still blissfully ignorant.
The truth is, the open source method will win here - even in spite of Microsoft if for nothing else in that most of the world does NOT use Microsoft for mail relay as it is too insecure and unstable. And those that do have lots of staff to nurse the systems.
With any mail solution, it must be open and universal or it will not work.
Why shouldn't free software be the first to implement secure email? Imagine how much easier Linux advocacy would be if we could say: "SPAM? - I thought that was a Windows problem?..."
Imagine this conversation:
Tech: What's the problem?
User: I get all this SPAM, and I can't read my real email.
Tech: Let me guess, you're still using Windows, right?
User: How'd you know?
Tech: Because you're still getting SPAM. If you upgrade to Linux, which uses the SPAM-blocking mail protocol, your SPAM problem will go away... I'll send you a CD in the mail.
What really irks me is that rather than invent new solutions to existing problems, the free software community waits for a commercial vendor to implement a solution, and then copies it. What we should really be doing at this point is implementing a SPAM-free mail protocol in free software, which, once it became the standard, would force commercial companies into compliance, rather than trying to play a game of dodge-the-patent-lawsuit by copying someone else's improperly done anti-SPAM protocol.
Let's face the facts here, folks: if we wait for Microsoft to implement an anti-SPAM protocol, they'll do it wrong, and the free software world will be stuck trying to ensure compatibility with an interface that is fundamentally broken in the first place.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The site Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail has been saying this for a very long time. Since the merging of SPF and Caller-ID into Sender-ID it's been getting a bit out-of-date, but the patent issues are still valid.
æeee!
Without a truckload of background information, it is hard to figure out how Doug's reply even relates to the parent message by RMS.
RFC 2821 is about the only thing which is referred to in a way that can be looked up without analyzing approximately half of the list archive... but if the intention is to convince the world that M$'s about to do some dastardly deed, and how it could be averted, this information will need to be presented in a much more enlightening and accessible fashion.
censorship devise?
it's whoreabully abused, & quite frankly, infactdead, we think.
makes us think the corepirate nazi swastika lowgo fits here?
ask him rick. tell 'em robbIE?
'Microsoft license does not stop the distribution of source, in fact there's a specific clause allowing it (2.2), you just have to include a paragraph in the source code. Nor does RMS say what his problem is, aside from "Grrr, it's Microsoft". '
m _s enderid.mspx
The problem *IS* that paragraph, it makes the license extendable, since anyone who wants to use/give away/do anything with, it in future would have to get permission from MS.
"Our provision of this source code does not include any licenses or any other rights to you under any Microsoft intellectual property. If you would like a license from Microsoft you need to contact Microsoft directly"
There is no limit set on that permission, so MS can change the license terms using that paragraph at any time for any future product.
"So, the license RMS is ranting about doesn't apply"
Yes it does (Published 23rd June 2004):
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spa
"If you are a software developer and are interested in implementing this specification in software, please review the terms of the Caller ID for E-Mail Implementation License before you begin, as the patent license discusses the rights that Microsoft would grant you or your organization."
he's been cross-posting this shit all day...
Sure, it's big with Exchange in corporate enterprises and in the client arena with Outlook & Outlook express.
But sendmail running on some UNIX-type server provides the majority of backbone email routing, especially at ISP level, and DNS is invariably done with BIND on other UNIX boxes. This does not strike me as an area that MS have much capability of muscling in on with a proprietary protocol.
Or am I missing something here?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
From: Ted Hardie
Subject: Regarding the recent licensing thread
To: ietf-mxcomp@imc.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:27:41 -0700
Some points on the recent licensing postings:
1) This discussion has been unprofessional in the extreme. Contributors to this working group have been accused of failing in a duty they did perform, and that is rude and unproductive. The Microsoft IPR filing related to callerid was posted with their first ID, which is exactly what is required. Those who have been waiting for such a statement either don't understand the process or have not been paying attention, and their acting offended about things now carries no weight. A refresh with the new name and some details on coverage is warranted for clarity before the documents go to the RFC editor, but that is a paper trail issue, not substantive.
2) The IETF is an engineering body, and it makes engineering decisions. It cares about licensing only as it affects the ability to implement and deploy a standard. Religious opinions on the sanctity of specific license texts belong elsewhere. The sudden appearance of this as a separate topic without reference to the engineering choices misses the point of how the IETF makes these calls: in the context of the engineering decisions. Comments based solely on the licensing terms without regard to the engineering choices they affect *do not speak to the question working groups need to decide*. The sudden appearance of new working group participants after postings inviting them to comment is welcome *if they contribute to the engineering discussion*. But if you are here to comment on licensing outside of the engineering context, you are wasting your electrons.
3) The IETF has published standards with defensive patents many times, and the use of a reciprocal/royalty free license is a common way for contributors to protect themselves from later claims while still encouraging the creation of an interoperable, open standard. Trying to persuade the working group that something is outside the norm when the IETF IPR page is full of contrary examples insults the intelligence of the group, as well as insulting the contributors who are providing a royalty free license.
4) Armchair lawyers often assume things about patents and licensing which aren't true. Get a real lawyer to read things you're concerned about and have them talk to the contributor's lawyers about things that concern you. The creation of a licensed "libipr" called by other applications may be all it takes to have licenses with severe restrictions co-exist with royalty free/reciprocal licenses; this isn't something you can assume one way or the other. You really have to have professionals check. And when you find things that concern you, be aware that this license isn't responsible for ways you may already have bound yourself; if you signed an agreement with HP Lovecraft that said "I will only acknowledge Chthulhu in my code", don't blame Microsoft for requiring an IPR notice. Take it up with the Elder Gods.
5) Generic rants about patents belong on your national I-hate-the-patent-office list. Rants about the IETF's standing decision *against* requiring a specific license or class of licenses belong on the IPR list, but are very likely to be redundant to arguments already made. Read the archives.
New drafts are now out, waiting for careful review. I urge the working group to review them carefully and to focus on how they can be interpreted, coded, and deployed. We have a lot of work to do.
Ted Hardie
So you ask, why not run spam blocking on all open source MTAs? Simple: it takes two to tango. Email is a communication medium, emphasis on that prefix "co-". Your new Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem is useless if the other guy's server doesn't support your protocol. And I suspect most of us are unwilling to cut off all email with half of our friends/family/business just because their mail admin isn't as smart as yours. Anyone with that philosophy is already using SPEWS.
That will eventually lead you to Microsoft's page on Sender ID. The actual licence agreement is halfway down the page (they refer to it as caller id and sender id interchangeably it seems).
If you do read the licence agreement you'll see that not only does an MTA developer have to sign/return it but so does an end-user _if_ and _only_ _if_ they want the source to their MTA.
That is, just about everyone. Additionally the language in the license explicitly makes it impossible to use with LGPL/GPL'd MTAs.
enough said
I think we need to take a look at where forged sender spam comes from before we are willing to consider trying to detect forgery as a means to detect a message as being spam. In the past, small time spammers did forgery to avoid flooding their one mailbox. Now days, bigger spammers have domain names (often thousands of them) and don't have to worry about that issue. But there are still spammers doing forgery. Most of these using the infected zombie machines on insecure home computers often connected 24x7 via "always on" DSL or Cable.
If the providers hosting these users would:
- block outbound port 25 from these users (with certain exceptions)
- require SMTP AUTH to log in to their provided mail server
- rate limit mail sent through that mail server (for example no more than 30 messages per hour)
then this would go a long way to defeat the utilization of these infected machines as a spamming tool.I mentioned an exception to the port 25 blocking. They should simply allow port 25 for anyone who mentions certain keywords indicating they need it. While there is some spamming that originates at the DSL or Cable user, that doesn't account for much right now. So sure, someone intent on spamming can call in to customer support and ask "please enable SMTP for my access account". But they would be fewer in number than those who ask the same because they just want to run their own home mail server without having to forward through the ISP's mail server. And one simple way to do this is to ship DSL/Cable modems with SMTP access disabled except for the provider mail servers. And manufacturers could do that if providers would set up private IP addresses to access their mail servers (so by default SMTP would be allowed to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 and 192.168.0.0/16). Someone who wanted to run their own mail server could simple change the settings. The average user who lets machines become infected would know nothing about it.
Like anything else, this isn't a solution to spam. But it is a viable alternative to forgery detection in terms of catching most of the spam from most of the sources being used by the spammers that do use sender address forgery.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"...If you upgrade to Linux, which uses the SPAM-blocking mail protocol, your SPAM problem will go away... I'll send you a CD in the mail..."
And BTW, you can't run any of the apps you used to run (beacause we're talking about a clueless M$ W1nd0w$ running n3wb13, here, right? No clue about Wine or somesuch...).
The response would be: "Fuck That! I'll tolerate the spam. I need Photoshop or whatever - I'm pulling in $300/day using that package and you're taking it away from me!"
"1) This discussion has been unprofessional in the extreme. "
Get a thicker skin.
"2) The IETF is an engineering body, and it makes engineering decisions. It cares about licensing only as it affects the ability to implement and deploy a standard. "
The wording requires you get a license from Microsoft and that any future products require a license too. So clearly this problem comes under the "ability to implement" part of the sentence.
3) There is no such thing as a 'defensive' patent. Ted cannot see into the mind of Microsoft and determine their intent is to only use it for defence. Therefore he cannot make this statement with any substance behind it.
4) Non substantial argument. The license is very clear, show me a lawyer that says otherwise.
5) Agreed.
"New drafts are now out, waiting for careful review. I urge the working group to review them carefully and to focus on how they can be interpreted, coded, and deployed. We have a lot of work to do. "
Oh boy, we have a spec that has issues XYZ,
he's telling them to look at X and only X. i.e. to ignore Y & Z and make a decision based on only part of the information.
IP rights are retained by default unless waived licensed or assigned.
So show me where Microsoft waives their rights to allow anyone to use Microsoft's part of the merged spec!
He's such a zealot that he's going to trash anything that's not completely open and free, even if it has the potential to improve a serious situation.
I'm sure the Microsoft lawyers have ALREADY evaluated the various Open Source licenses so it shouldn't take them long to just pick one.
The coders that are working on this at Microsoft are NOT the ones that will be choosing the license.
The LAWYERS working for Microsoft will be working on an approach that is BEST FOR MICROSOFT. (read that as "control").
It all comes down to a matter of priorities.
Microsoft's FIRST priority is to establish control.
Microsoft's SECOND priority is to stop spam.
If Microsoft was more worried about stopping spam then establishing control, you would not see the lawyers taking this much time to meet with everyone. They know what licenses would be the easiest to have accepted.
Here's a url with a list of them.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Microsoft's lawyers can quickly pick one and that discussion would be over.
"We asked Harry and Jim to take up the licensing issue with their lawyers about a WEEK AGO. "
2 53 .shtml
Your RFC is dated 20th July 2004. 5 days ago.
Later on you say this:
"Now less than 24 hours after Microsoft go off to talk with their lawyers "
Which is it a week or 24 hours? It looks like you put out the RFC, people complained about the licensing issue, and now you're in ass covering mode.
Yet this problem was known about for a long time:
Here's "Eben Moglen -- professor of law at Columbia Law School and General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation " complaining about the patent and license problems with Caller ID from late FEBRUARY.
http://www.newsforge.com/software/04/02/26/1448
So it's more BSD-like then, big deal.
The BSD abandoned that clause for a reason. But Microsoft's license actually goes much further. If you distribute source code under a BSD license, the recipient still has no rights to use the software unless they contact Microsoft and get permission specifically. The license requires you to put this notice on any source code that implements SPF:
Which directly contradicts the very definition of Open Source. In other words, Microsoft's license is incompatible with all open source licenses!
Why is that different to the GPL? They're both licences that apply to the use of software. Without a license, you can't legally use any non-public domain software. The GPL is one such license, this is another.
You need a license to use patented technology. You do not need a license to use copyrighted software. Copyright only gives the author a monopoly on:
Note that the right to use is not in there. The GPL specifically allows you to decline the license. You may still go ahead and use the software even after declining the license. The GPL simply grants you the six rights listed above (with certain conditions).
Microsoft's license, however, grants a revocable right to use their patents. You could distribute SPF software under a BSD license, and Microsoft could revoke anyone's right to use the patent at any time (even if you already have the software, use it, and depend on it).
Big deal. Why does everything have to be GPL compatible? What would be wrong with, say, a BSD-style license for this particular application?
Even though you could distribute SPF software under a BSD license, you could not redistribute the software without explicit permission from Microsoft. That pretty much excludes the open source, bazaar style of development.
Make no mistake about it. Microsoft wants to shut down open source software. What better way than to prohibit open source software from doing that which people most use computers for, to send and receive email?
Re-read #2, #3 and #4.
IETF does not concern itself with patents/licenses and has published standards that include patents and you don't know what patents are, anyway.
Bugger off. The patents and the licensing are VERY IMPORTANT to the implementation of the standard. Otherwise, you're writing a standard that won't be implemented. Why do that?
"Comments based solely on the licensing terms without regard to the engineering choices they affect *do not speak to the question working groups need to decide*."
Yes they do. Again, what good is a standard that no one will implement?
> The kind of freedom RMS is referring to can't be taken away or used to discriminate between users
What I find interestign about this is that as soon as we talk about 'non discrimination' related laws in EUrope, that is called 'lack of freedom' by many from the USA.. as soon as it comes to GPL freedom, enforcing anti discriminative rules is 'protecting freedom'.
I know, off topic, but I just found it an interesting observation.
Let someone else innovate, steal the idea, clone it and compete against them without rewarding them for their work.
Name me five open source products that aren't simply a clone of a commercial products.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Marid is an Arabic name meaning "rebellious". I'm just wondering if this was intentional or a coincidence.
When I learned that the Microsoft additions were being added, and that they were going to use XML, I immediately thought 'hah! bloat! typical microsoft! This data does not require or need or benefit from using XML.'
But, I was wrong. Adding XML allows them to patent it. That is the ONLY reason why they are using XML.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
if the emails themselves were authenticated.
If the emails themselves are authenticated, the MTAs just become a delivery mechanism (which is actually what they really are today anyway). Which MTA delivers the authenticated email doesn't matter, and therefore MTA authentication doesn't matter.
Authenticating emails would ensure you absolutely known the sender. A spammer wouldn't be anonymous anymore. Once they aren't anonymous anymore, anti-SPAM laws would be very effective at reducing or preventing spam.
Deploying an authentication system with 100% coverage of the Internet population is the problem with this anti-spam solution.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
This type of scheming is both unprofessional and damaging.
I don't see any "scheming". RMS is warning about what seems to be the legal situation right now. Instead of pointing us to facts that contradict his view, you are just giving us a lot of verbiage, flaming, and accusations, and you are telling us that we should trust you and that everything is going to be right in the end.
This is the machinations of a faction who want to use MARID for conducting a vendetta against Microsoft and don't care what the effect on MARID is.
Your use of the term "vendetta" implies that you are saying that RMS's behavior is motivated by a personal grudge and a desire for revenge against Microsoft. But there is no indication that RMS has any such personal motivations--his position is consistent with the criteria he has previously applied to evaluating other standards. If anything is "unprofessional" here, it's your accusations against him.
Your standard has run into negative publicity because of the way the standards body communicated the legal situation, and that's your problem, not his. As soon as you provide convincing evidence that the legal situation surrounding MARID is bulletproof, then RMS will stop complaining about it.
The arguments over whether security can only come from obscurity are old, and need not be rehashed.
And this is very unlike the GPL.
RMS does seem to understand the GPL...
"What really irks me is that rather than invent new solutions to existing problems, the free software community waits for a commercial vendor to implement a solution, and then copies it. "
Relax. It didn't happen.
SPF came from the OSS community and is in use.
Its proposed merged form came later.
You won't read your emails, or you won't be a *nix or Mac user, period.
on showering
RMS never weighed in on SOAP.
Their priority is to pave the way for "legitimate" unsolicited commercial email and control of the that definition. They have argued at length that their spam is legitimate but others are not. That would be part of the exclusion that RMS is talking about and it's ultimate goal, control and the fees you can collect with that control.
I would not attribute good faith to a company that has so often demonstrated such bad faith.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I honestly think a well tuned spam filter e.g. spamassasin does the job very well without all the inherent problems sender ID/SPF brings along. I just can't see the need for that. Anyone else who thinks the same way?
Read what the RISKS Digest has to say about SPF:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.21.html#subj7.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.21.html#subj8.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.21.html#subj9.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.23.html#subj8.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.23.html#subj9.1
as a matter of fact, just what he's forgotten, is likely more relevant to communications/commerce, than everybodIE in the kingdumb of payper liesense/stock markup FraUD softwar gangster felon execrable, .combined?
so, whois ready for the gnu millennium?
never mind robbIE's fauxking PostBlock censorship devise, it's still under development?
As many thoughtful people seem to know.
A /s mtp-spf-is-harmful.html#ISPLockIn
The "war on spam" doesn't mean that destroying the current structure of internet mail is justified.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FG
IM2000 is the way.
Copyright law granted the holder control over distribution and some forms of copying. It does NOT grant any control over how the material is used beyond copying and distributing!
The gpl works entirely within copyright law, you don't have to agree to it to use the software because you don't need someone to GIVE you RIGHTS YOU ALREADY HAVE. The only reason you EVER don't have the right to use a copyrighted work is if you obtained it illegally.
This is why most copyrighted works aren't licensed at all, books, cd's, etc.
If Microsoft were the only company to implement this protocol, it would be more effective than they ever dreamed:
Microsoft should be congratulated, not censured, for coming up with such a scheme to help edge detection of spam.