Re: smtp-verify vs. the SPF propaganda

Hadmut Danisch <[email protected]>:
> 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.

There is substantial original work in SPF. The macro syntax and the
support for multiple lookup mechanisms stand out as examples.  That
being said, Meng Weng Wong doesn't seem to me to be at all reluctant
to acknowledge that he took what he thought were the best ideas from
both RMX and DMP.  

Meng Weng Wong's goal from the beginning was to combine the
best of the existing proposals and then improve on that combination.
In doing so, he has had help from many contributors on the SPF list,
including myself. 

> I asked the organizers and they denied that any handout had been 
> published at this conference.

The handout did exist and was distributed there.  It was a one-page
summary of SPF.

> The SPF draft violates the IETF's intellectual property rules
> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Section10.txt).

I have read those rules and I do not see a violation, unless you
are claiming proprietary rights over the concept of expressing
LMAP information in a DNS zone file.  Are you doing so?

>                                           As far as I know 
> SPF looks like an Internet Draft, but was never submitted,
> certainly for good reasons. 

The finishing touches are being put on an I-D right now.  I expect it
will be submitted within a week.

> Seeing the marketing hype done around SPF I consider this 
> as a kind of hijacking and sabotage.

I see a normal engineering process.  Meng Weng Wong consulted me on
the question of whether to go through the IETF process, fearing that
it would actually slow down deployment because the IETF finds it
institutionally difficult to move quickly.  I advised him to go the
IETF route to give SPF credibility as a standard.  He is following
that advice.

>                                    He is doing everything 
> to make the plagiate a standard in public perception before
> an RFC is generated IETF internally.

No, he has been working up an IETF draft in parallel with his
marketing efforts.  I have been involved in this process.

>                            All journalists I've spoken 
> with believe that SPF is the will-become-the-RFC.

Yes, he is doing a good job of marketing the idea.  This is important
because the central problem in LMAP is achieving a critical mass of
deployment.  By comparison, the details of how and where the LMAP
information is carried are a technical detail.

>                                          They don't even 
> know that IRTF/IETF have groups working on this. But Wong is 
> the "leading head" regarding MIT's propaganda.

The several journalists I've spoken with regarding SPF don't seem
confused on this issue.  They're well aware that IETF is working
on this, usually before I emphasize yet.

> 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.

Largely true, for two reasons:

(1) The authors of RMX and DMX failed to do an effective job of 
marketing their proposals. 

(2) IETF has not moved (and perhaps cannot move) as fast as the pace
of change that Meng Weng Wong has been able to stimulate by talking
with the press and recruiting influential allies.

I see no merit in your accusations.  Your failure to market your idea
as effectively as Meng Weng Wong has done is not his problem.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>