Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

[AccuSpam <support@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>And from http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03750.html:
>
>       "Finally, some participants have outright stated that they are
>       interested only in the advancement of a competing specification
>       to Sender ID while others have not said so much but have taken
>       a similar tone. This is most offensive and counter to the notion
>       of finding a consensus-based standard. Many individuals in this
>       working group have worked very hard to find common ground, and
>       this unilateralism is unfair to them. If it is your intent to be
>       unwavering and steadfast in your opinion no matter the discourse
>       of the issues, we ask that you disengage from this working group."

I add my vote to this motion for reasons I previously stated:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04008.html

and AccuSpam has no particular attachment to any competing standard for PER-DOMAIN anti-forgery.

I also find no major objection if Microsoft can eliminate the need to sign (fax or otherwise agree to) a patent license in order to distribute products which implement SenderID.  Else I think we should be patient to standardize on an alternative which is clearly in the public domain.  In the meantime, we have de facto standards, such as SPF, which can are gaining adoption (especially among anti-spam) and can protect senders who are being phished.

Additionally, the issue of deploying per-domain anti-forgery out to all senders is a complex one that is not completely solved with MSFT's PR apparatus and influence.

-Shelby Moore