 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | What did you expect... ...From Microsoft? | |
|  | 
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON | Re: What did you expect... What kind of useless comment is that? Are you some kind of moron? | |
| | | Bananas
Premium
join:2004-08-18
Santa Barbara, CA | Re: What did you expect... Gee whiz... he was just commenting on the article, why do you have to turn it into a personal attack to make yourself feel superior? Stick to the topic for what it's worth. | |
| | | |
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON
| Re: What did you expect... I was referring to his lack of explanation or contribution to the discussion. Oh well, at least he didn't make any reference to posting first.
--
StephenHarperSaid.caLiberal.ca | |
| | | 
dleaberr
Read A Book
Premium
join:2003-11-13
Spanish Fork, UT
| said by osme  :
What kind of useless comment is that? Are you some kind of moron?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The poster is merely stating that microsoft has no incentive to release open source compatible ideas/code. That is no big surprise. Seeing as how most ISP level servers are running *nix varients with Sendmail or Postfix the "Open source-ability" of the code is important. | |
| | | |
osme
Premium
join:2001-09-07
Hamilton, ON | Re: What did you expect... Indeed. See, now, doesn't an explanation go well with his (poorly) stated opinion? | |
| | | | 
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| Or he just doesn't like companies full of well paid wealthy computer geeks, or he doesn't like paying for software, or lots of other possibilities too.
Unless one can read minds one can't really tell why he has that opinion.
I think it was just an ad homonym argument (name calling).
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | | | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: What did you expect... Or... maybe if you READ the attached article his comment would make perfect sense.
Microsoft has encumbered the technology with a patent which would place Microsoft in ownership of core Internet technology.
Surely this would be unacceptable to anyone. | |
| | | | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| It is not proper behaviour to make snide remarks about someone who offers you a charitable donation just because you don't like the attached conditions.
This is especially true when you are not in poverty.
Kapil does not make the argument that some specific condition Microsoft has asked for is unfair. He makes the that: "what do you expect, it is Microsoft".
Kapil argument is that Microsoft has made unfair offer, and the offer is clearly unfair because it is Microsoft making it.
He says does not address the offer is or give any real reason why it is unfair.
An argument made by attacking the entity making the argument is an ad hominum argument -- name calling.
What do you expect, it he is "black" or "jewish" or "microsoft" all ad hominum arguments -- attacking the person rather than attacking the facts being made.
»encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c···0hominem
quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin Alternative meanings:
Literally "argument to the man", is a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. ...
Even the shareware lawyer doesn't call Microsoft's offer unfair.
He just says it isn't adequate for distributing shareware.
He's a lawyer, he expects to get paid for his work, even though the product of his work is intellectual property. Unlike computer programmers, lawyers and physicians seldom work for free, and when they do, they generally do it for the poor, and they generally try to get a charitable contribution receipt for the applicable tax deduction.
Lawyers and physicians know people do not value what they get for free, whether it is physical property, welfare money, subsidized housing, or intellectual property.
Most people devalue any charitable gifts they receive, and come to believe that receiving such charity is a basic human right. This is true of "them" and it is true for "us".
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: What did you expect... said by keith2468 :
Even the shareware lawyer doesn't call Microsoft's offer unfair.
He just says it isn't adequate for distributing shareware.
[gratuitous philosyphizing deleted]
I should have read your post. Clearly I failed to do that.
You are correct in your comments regarding Kapil. Thanks for slapping me and getting my attention.
Have you considered the implications of a proprietary standard being applied to the core internet infrastructure? How much will you pay per E-Mail message when Microsoft owns every mail server on the planet, because only Microsoft servers can run their proprietary standard.
This little ploy has implications which are much further reaching than just mail transport.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | 
tcp1
Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA | Yeah.. That's it. If the open source community rejects it, but Microsoft is for it, it MUST be bad. No other consideration or thinking is required.
Sarcasm noted, I hope. | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: What did you expect... I do not think it is bad because Microsoft is for it. However, Microsoft IS a for-profit corporation. I do not think Internet policy should be defined by an organization whose first motivation is to make a profit for its investors. Such policy decisions should be make by the internet community at large and the Apache foundation is a big part of it.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com | |
| 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | SenderID has what to do with apache? Last time I checked, apache was for httpd, not for e-mail. Have they now included an e-mail server? | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | Re: SenderID has what to do with apache? The Apache Foundation involves a lot of things beyond the webserver (SpamAssassin, for instance). | |
| | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by reub2000 :
Last time I checked, apache was for httpd, not for e-mail. Have they now included an e-mail server?
Did you read the news article?
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Technically Speaking... They aren't rejecting SenderID the software, they are rejecting the license under which it is being released. They would be willing to support the software if it were released with a more OpenSource friendly license (e.g., Apache, GPL, LGPL, BSD).
I can't believe that SPF sold its soul...
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" | |
| | 
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| Re: Technically Speaking... I would agree.
I think Meng Wong et. al. was so worried about adoption of something to stem the gigantic tide of spam, that people would adopt Caller-ID and leave SPF in the backwater of good but unimplemented ideas, so he thought let's compromise and take that under our wings so it all works and it all gets implemented. In part, he's right, just because MS is so big. They're so big that there is almost some truth the the lightbulb joke * .
As for The Apache Foundation, I'd have to agree with them. You can't encumber standards with IPR claims/reservations. Call me crazy, but I'd rather see something more like a Red Hat Software "defensive patent" than what I see in the licensing terms for Sender-ID...or even assign all rights to the IETF/IAB/whatever.
* For those who haven't heard/read it: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None: Microsoft just declares "darkness" to be a new "standard."
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
| | | 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Technically Speaking...Perhaps I got this all wrong, but from what I can gather there were 2 very similar (Identical?) proposals put forth Meng Wong's "SPF" and Microsoft's "Caller ID".
What "sender ID" (the proposed new RFC) is, is a meld of the two proposals. The only difference I can see between the original "spf" and "caller ID" proposals is that the SPF proposal published DNS-spf records in plain text format while the caller ID proposal publishes the very same records in XML format.
The IETF MARID Working Group has proposed this "caller id", which now has to pass the security group's muster, and then be finally adopted/rejected/modified by the IETF.
It would appear that the patent encumbrance has to do with Microsofts pending patents on the algorithm needed to determine the purported validity of a sender IP based on the XML version of the SPF records. No such encumbrances exist on the original text version SPF implementation.
What the ASF has done is to state clearly (and correctly IMHO) that no core internet standard should be adopted which is encumbered by patent problems, in this case it would mean the IETF would drop the "caller ID/XML" portion of the proposed RFC, and issue an RFC based on the text-only SPF record.
I am not a programmer, nor a patent lawyer, but I can see no real benefit in adopting the MS/XML portion of the spec at all, especially if it gets MS's foot into the door of owning a portion of the Internets core technology. It would be a bad political move on the part of the IETF to allow this to happen, and have no real technical benefit.
While not too accurate, this is a pretty good synopsis on the issue and you can find the ASF position paper here
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| | | |
rchandra
Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
clubs:
| Re: Technically Speaking... I'm not quite sure how a "security group" enters into this. If you saw "SG", I think maybe what you saw refers to "Steering Group" instead, such as IESG: Internet Engineering Steering Group.
"Everybody" seems to have agreed, BTW, that it is now "Sender-ID," not "Caller-ID" anymore.
As I understand it, SPF refers to the original simple text specification, whereas Sender-ID encompasses special names in the domain space (_ep), and further complicates things by using (possibly multiple) TXT records encoded in XML. To me at least, Sender-ID is all so much unnecessary goo. In fact, I read a mailing list archive message recently which noted the peril of publishing such large-ish data sets, in that resolvers will switch to TCP for such stuff, and lots of organizations do not wish to pass DNS over TCP through their firewalls.
What I just realized as I post this is that even if it's "consolidated" (so that one doesn't need to publish both styles of records), Meng's talking about changing from using the envelope sender for processing to the PRA...which is one of the main problems you point out, that this is what's really at stake w/r/t patent claims: the algorithm for what should constitute the PRA. The two important implications of this are that now SPF itself is tainted by MS IPR reservations, and it beocmes a DATA time decision instead of a MAIL FROM or RCPT TO time decision. The volume of mail seen on my domain is such that discarding or erroring just after the DATA phase is not a concern for me, but for those domains that get a GB or so per day, and 80+% of it is spam, is that it really, really chews up network bandwidth. That's also, BTW, a great weakness with Yahoo! Domain Keys and Cisco's similar proposal. For this reason, I'd much rather see any of these things take the form of extensions to MAIL FROM or RCPT TO, similar to how SIZE=, BY=, etc. work.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
| | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: Technically Speaking... Yes.... I meant the IESG; I believe they have to sign-off on the proposal on it's way to the final IETF review.
I agree totally with what you say! Also, what will make or break this is the Open Source community's acceptance and support or rejection of whatever the IETF ends up approving.
I would predict that unless the MS patent issues are resolved amicably ( IE free open-source) this RFC will be DOA before it is even completed. Here is what sendmail has to say. If MS were to hinder sendmail by copyright crap, then this is truly dead, no matter what else happens. At last look sendmail was responsible for more than 60% of all MTAs on the net.
What's unfortunate here, is that this is a potentially useful RFC, especially for us where rejecting bogus mail before the DATA stage is critical to saving bandwidth, CPU-time, and in the end $$$$$!
As usual, it boils down to a power-trip on the part of MS, in an attempt to hijack core internet infrastructure technology. I for one will live without the technology if this is allowed to stand! However, with the mass opposition to this being voiced, I find it hard to believe that the IETF will rule favorably on this given the fact that major portions of the open source developers of email-software will either not implement it or refuse to abide with the patent restrictions.
EDIT: Fixed wrong sendmail link :-((
Bob | |
| 
Trakker
Danger
Premium
join:2003-01-12
ß | What do you expect from the Open Source morons? Duh!?!?! | |
| | 
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY | Re: What do you expect from the Open Source morons That added just as much contribution to the discussion as the first poster. | |
| | | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
| Re: What do you expect from the Open Source morons Well it makes perfect sense.
Surely you don't expect Microsoft to just throw any of its code to the open source community? Don't be a fool. They are in competition with each other. Just as Yahoo has created its own scheme, the open sources community should do the same. Then of course the problem is getting all this crap to work together. | |
| | | | Goldengamego
Premium
join:2004-02-22
Okemos, MI
| Re: What do you expect from the Open Source morons said by NPGMBR :
Well it makes perfect sense.
Surely you don't expect Microsoft to just throw any of its code to the open source community? Don't be a fool. They are in competition with each other. Just as Yahoo has created its own scheme, the open sources community should do the same. Then of course the problem is getting all this crap to work together.
They don't need to throw away any code; SenderID defines a protocol/method for authenticating email. The person writing the app does the coding.
--
Because Goldengamegod won't fit:p | |
| Goldengamego
Premium
join:2004-02-22
Okemos, MI
1 edit |  SPF
I doubt Microsoft would care if they added SenderID to apache, it's not like MS is going to make any money of this.
More about SPF here,
»spf.pobox.com/
--
Because Goldengamegod won't fit:p | |
| B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Don't Let MS BabysitI threw my two cents in at »Microsoft Kills Sender-ID in the Cradle over in the Spam forum on 8/25/04, but nobody seems to go there these days.
I'm in one sense saddened but in another I'm glad to see that I wasn't overstating the case!
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
| | | |
|
|
Apache Foundation Rejects SenderID
