[ Sorry, but I couldn't resists to give a nasty side comment: Vernon Shryver was one of the persons who most unobjectively and maliciously attacked RMX and any other proposal against Spam. He was displeased because his own invention has major flaws, and that I showed in the RMX draft that his proposal can and is abused for censoring e-mail traffic. His posting appears to me as if he took the opportunity for revenge. I'll nevertheless reply to correct some of his misleading and wrong statements. ] First, my name is Danisch, not Danish. On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:40:44AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > - None of the versions of Mr. Danish's proposal that I've seen > credited Mr. Vixie's document or some others than preceded Mr. > Danish's work. I think that was due to ignornance and disinterest > instead of malice, but it does reduce Mr. Danish's standing to > more credit than he already receives. This is pure nonsense. The same kind of defamation he already used on the early asrg mailing list. I did not cite or credit anyone else because at the time I wrote RMX I did not know of anyone else's work in this field. RMX is in no way derived from or based on anyone else's work. If anyone has any doubt about this, I can show that I was working on organizational security, especially in context of e-mail, that RMX is just the logical continuation of my former work and that I had very good reasons to design RMX the way it is. How should I have cited or credited someone else's work without knowing it? And why? In contrast, SPF and CallerID were provably based on RMX, the authors were familiar with RMX, and the first version of SPF was explicetely announced to cover RMX. > - Mr. Danish's proposal was always an obvious non-starter for various > reasons, including the requirement for defining new DNS RR types > before it could be deployed or even tested. RMX is not the requirement for defining the new DNS RR type. This was just the proposal how to implement it. That's the illogical point of the story: SPF was derived from RMX by simply omitting the invention of a new DNS RR type. This didn't change the idea of RMX, just changed the way to implement it a little bit. And the same time certain people claimed that SPF is 'new' and that RMX is wrong because it required a new DNS RR type. Typical way of intentional misinformation. > - It is ironic or something that few people who are openly concerned > about credit for their work have enviable reputations. They tend > to be inventors of such as IPv8. ??? Does anyone have a clue what this is about? Hadmut Danisch _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf