Re: Our Stance on new Sender ID Revision?
* Martin Schulze:
> According to a Reuters story, Microsoft's Sender-ID standard has been
> revised and will be resubmitted to the IETF.
>
> I wonder what people are thinking about this revision.
> Do we have a common stance on it?
Which revision? The only thing that's been updated so far is the FAQ
(on October 25). It reads:
| Q9: Why is a signed license required?
|
| A: The fact that the one must sign the license to be licensed is a
| good way to ensure that licensees know the terms under which the
| patented technology is being licensed and ensures that Microsoft
| receives a reciprocal license from each licensee.
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/3/9/439b024b-09fd-44ee-8ff0-10e834004c36/senderid_FAQ.PDF>
This doesn't look very promising. Other parts of the FAQ suggest that
mail server operators must sign a license, too.
We haven't got any evidence of a substantial change so far, and a
discussion appears to be premature.
Reply to: