smtp-verify vs. the SPF propaganda

Hi,

I wonder whether this working group still has a chance to 
succeed.

There is currently an enourmous hype around SPF and everyone
is talking about SPF and Meng Weng Wong only.

Going back in the archive of the ASRG mailing list shows that
SPF was just a plagiate of RMX and DMP, and that Wong shamelessly
copied and relabeled it. I found that he and the former ASRG chair
were fooling a Washington Post's journalist to make it look as if
this was just SPF and Meng Weng Wong. 

The german edition of MIT's Technology Review published an article
a few days ago about SPF based on an interview with Wong. They call 
him the leading head behind this, describe the method and talk about
SPF only. I've contacted the editor and the author of the article. 
They were fully aware that this article is incorrect, but they said
they wanted to show the mechanism and focus on the "leading head", but
did not want to show where the idea came from. When I blamed them for 
intentionally violating german intellectual property law, the editor
just stated that the german edition of an american magazine is not the
right place for transatlantic conflicts. Transatlantic conflicts are
given higher priority than truth. Largest german news magazine "Der
Spiegel" immediately cited the TR article without verification. The
famous german computer magazine c't (same published) also talks about
SPF only. Now everyone here believes that SPF is the invention. I
recently was asked why I'm so silly to publish RMX on my web page, and
whether I didn't know that this already is published as SPF.

There's another strange thing about MIT: There was an antispam
conference at MIT in January. Meng Weng Wong is publishing a 
handout on his web page spf.pobox.com and claims that this was
distributed at the MIT conference. It's also labeled with "@MIT"
and makes it look as if SPF was MIT approved. 

I asked the organizers and they denied that any handout had been 
published at this conference. When I asked them again about
this particular SPF handout, I did not even receive an answer. 
I asked who is responsible for this conference and infringements
of intellectual properties at this conference, but nobody gives 
an answer. MIT itself doesn't seem to know which conferences are
held on it's premises and under it's name. 

The SPF draft violates the IETF's intellectual property rules
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Section10.txt). As far as I know 
SPF looks like an Internet Draft, but was never submitted,
certainly for good reasons. 

Seeing the marketing hype done around SPF I consider this 
as a kind of hijacking and sabotage. He is doing everything 
to make the plagiate a standard in public perception before
an RFC is generated IETF internally. All journalists I've spoken 
with believe that SPF is the will-become-the-RFC. They don't even 
know that IRTF/IETF have groups working on this. But Wong is 
the "leading head" regarding MIT's propaganda.

So if you don't want your work to be a waste of time and money, 
you have to prepare to cope with this. Everyone is already on the 
SPF trip.

regards
Hadmut