On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> All (especially Philip)
I read you...
> Not sure if this has hit the radar - the IETF MARID group (which is the
> group whose remit is to sort out which if any of Sender ID and its cousins
> gets ratified) is discussing the effect of the royalty-free license that
> Microsof is offering for the IPR it holds in the Sender ID proposal.
It hit my radar with some personal email as well as these list postings.
> It has been mooted that the said license is incompatible with the GPL, and
> Exim is being held up as an example of an MTA which wouldn't be able to
> incorporate the technology.
Correct. As it happens, I am no fan of SPF-like approaches because they
break automatic redirection. However, people claim already to have
configured Exim to do the SPF thing. I don't know how that differs from
Microsoft's Sender-ID.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:
> The problem is the leading open, royalty-free candidate was SPF.
We'll just have to hope that something better comes along, then, won't
we? I know there are other people working on other approaches.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
> i can't imagine that any responsible author of Open Source software
> would include something with those conditions.
If it can't be GPL'd, it can't go into Exim. Period.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Brodbeck wrote:
> AFAIK that isn't true, at least of the most recent draft of the license.
> You're only required to register if you *develop* software that uses
> SenderID.
That is totally unacceptable to me.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
> unless M$ backs down, i am under the impression that sender id ain't
> going into sendmail. if it doesn't go into sendmail, i can't see
> sender id ever reaching critical mass.
Good for Sendmail! (Now who'd have thought I would ever write that?)
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
