(Proposed on 2005-01-15 by Julian Mehnle. Passed by majority vote.)
<csm> Countering FUD and misinformation by Yahoo.
<grumpy> that PDF is from Oct.... I presume for the FTC conf
<Julian> Have you read the slides?
<Julian> It's hilarious.
<grumpy> yeah, pretty tacky, if you ask me
<grumpy> their example of SPF spoofing is completely bogus, as far as I can
tell
<Julian> "CipherTrust: Spam currently 34% more
<Julian> likely to be SPF verified than legit mail"
<grumpy> But, hey, if you are out in front, everyone will be taking pot
shots at you.
<MarkK> grrr; FUD indeed
<Julian> That can only mean that we have to build a domain-based blacklist,
so all the SPF-compliant spammers can be caught.
<grumpy> Julian: yeah, and the correct response is "great! we can easily
blacklist them now!"
<Julian> grumpy: Heh. :-))
<grumpy> :-)
<grumpy> Ok, my opinion: If we see that Yahoo is continuing to spread that
kind of fud, we should contact them.
<grumpy> otherwise, we should ignore them.
<grumpy> and work on advancing SPF
<MarkK> yes, idiots; that is the WHOLE point of SPF; you forced spammers to
use their own domains, so the world can reintroduce domain-named
blacklisting! (which is a whole lot better than IP based, really)
<Julian> grumpy: Hmm, contacting them might actually be a good idea.
<Julian> But I doubt they're going to listen to us.
<grumpy> Miles Libby posts to the MASS list fairly often
<grumpy> he hasn't been spreading as much FUD there as David Woodhouse or
John Levine.
<MarkK> I tyhink they were just being disengenious, really; they're not
that stupid;
<grumpy> MarkK: I think there is also a good chance that they don't
understand SPF
<grumpy> and they want to push DK
<MarkK> grumpy: especially the latter, I think
<MarkK> SPF is not higher math :)
* grumpy likes higher math... ;-)
<grumpy> Ok, so, what are we going to do about the fud?
<grumpy> as I said, I think we should ignore that particular PDF...
<grumpy> it is too old
<Julian> Nonetheless...
<Julian> Motion: A counterstatement to frequent FUD regarding SPF should be
created. The community shall make suggestions for the document, and
someone from the council shall compile it.
<Julian> It should later go onto the SPF project website.
<grumpy> isn't there already something like that on spf.pobox.com?
<Julian> It's outdated and doesn't handle some newer FUD.
<grumpy> true...
<MarkK> that is why I was (and am) so adamant about pushing for a
"Deployement recommendations Draft", so we can explain to the world
where we see the problems in today's market, and how we plan to
solve them.
<grumpy> speaking of which, weren't you going to look into doing a new SPF
website?
<Julian> MarkK: Well, an "anti-FUD" paper could concentrate on countering
FUD. A "deployment recommendations" paper couldn't.
<Julian> grumpy: Yes, I am.
<Julian> grumpy: I do have a plan, I just need to push it to spf-discuss
now.
<grumpy> ok
<Julian> grumpy: I am going to do that during the next week, I promise.
<MarkK> Julian: it depends on how deep we want to explain current practices
and our objections against it
<MarkK> julian: but I am all for a single 'Anti-FUD' paper too
<Julian> MarkK: Such an anti-FUD document wouldn't necessarily list
objections to current practices, just explain the wrongness of
various FUD.
<Julian> That doc should be relatively short, so we can refer to it easily
whenever FUD comes up during discussions.
<csm> I think that that doc needs to be fairly detailed
<csm> comprehensive
<Julian> It can refer to other docs, such as a "deployment recommendations"
paper.
<csm> and address the FUD point by point following a full, accurate
statement of what SPf is and what i's supposed to do
<grumpy> for what it is worth, I'm not sure we have to worry *that* much
about fud. there are a lot of folks that already understand SPF
and can recgonize BS when they see it.
<grumpy> For example, Dean Anderson posted a bunch of FUD to the BBLISA
list, and someone else did a fine job of countering it.
<Julian> I'm not saying we have to worry a lot about FUD, but countering it
with eloquence would be good marketing-wise.
<grumpy> widespread understanding of SPF would be better.
<Julian> What's the difference?
<grumpy> one is proactive, the other is reactive
<Julian> Why can't we do both?
<grumpy> we can, but I think we should do more proactive education
<Julian> Agreed.
<MarkK> In my understanding, ppl tend to gobble up what large companies
say, without thinking too much for themselves; a voice from our
community, countering a few things, would probably be helpful
<Julian> MarkK: Yes.
<grumpy> if people are using SPF and deploying it, then they will ignore the
FUD
<Julian> grumpy: But a lot of people won't bother in the first place because
they have heard that SPF eats their hamster and molests children.
<grumpy> I thought it molests their hamsters and eats their children, but...
<Julian> You know what I mean... ;-)
<grumpy> anyway, I've said my two cents on the subject
<Julian> "SPF rejects legitimate mail, don't use it."
<grumpy> ok, anything else on item 6?
<Julian> Motion: A counterstatement to frequent FUD regarding SPF should be
created. The community shall make suggestions for the document, and
someone from the council shall compile it. It should later go onto
the SPF project website.
<MarkK> seconded
<Julian> (with council approval)
<csm> votes
<MarkK> 2114: yes
<Julian> 2014u: yes
<grumpy> 2114: yes
<csm> so ordered
<MarkK> err, 2014: yes
<Julian> Great, thank you.