> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] > If we standardize a technology, we are saying that technology > solves some problem. and that its usage has well understood > and accepted consequences. Ergo since Microsoft and many others have already said they are going to be using PRA type techniques it follows that they had better be described so that the expectations of the legitimate senders are met. The point I am making here is that nothing that the IETF can do will create a situation where the sender of an email will be able to ensure that recipients do not filter the email using a particular technology. > So it is entirely appropriate to consider the effects on > senderds of spam filtering technology. Does the technology > have an unacceptably high false positive rate? Does the > technology adversly effect business models or classes of > users in ways we find unacceptable? > Does the technology impose and unreasonable load on senders? So document it. My concern was that the appeal is simply rehashing the IPR issue ad-naueam and provides no value. > The receiver can do whatever they like. The sender has no rights. > However, people expect us to publish standards that make > sense and produce a working Internet when used. So we're > going to consider these issues when we evaluate standards. > They like everything else we do will be a matter of rough > consensus. If you want to ignore the implications of your > work on the broader Internet and on both senders and > recipients, then perhaps the IETF is the wrong place for you > to do your work. There are legitimate concerns and unhelpful concerns. In the case of MARID the real root of the complaint is the IPR terms under which the PRA technology was offered. Despite the fact that the IETF has accepted many similar licenses certain people decided they had an opportunity to re-open a battle they had lost in W3C. In the case of spam filtering I would hazard a guess that every imaginable technique is claimed in at least a dozen current patent applications and that at least a quarter of them will be granted. So getting upset about this one particular technique that has been offered on open terms because they are asserted to be not quite open enough is a bit pointless. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf