But not the legal proof bit, 'cos SPF is total non-kill for that...

And you know that... How?

Fact is that 'YASAF' does more. So how do you know that people aren't thinking it should be generally adopted due to the fact that it does more?

That's my point. You're simply pissed at Yahoo's scheme because, apparently, it isn't SPF. Not because of what it is.

You are delusional if you think that Yahoo is trying to impose anything on anyone!

That's another point: Yahoo's scheme adds value (for them) even if absolutely no-one else implements it, yet the chance of that happening is slight.

Get over yourself, Julian! Since Yahoo isn't *preventing* you from implementing whatever the heck you want, it *is* 'free speech': you can implement SPF, ignore Yahoo, do whatever the blue blazes you want. And unless you have a totally different interpretation of 'at no charge', Yahoo's scheme *and* software is also free... (and I'd note that since they use a modified version of Qmail, the fact that they're also implementing it for Sendmail sounds like they're doing some work for lots of unCourier'd people for free, too (in the sense of 'at no charge').

Also, there are sound reasons to patent this sort of thing, not least of which is the protection of the technology against claims of infringement and (probably more so) the potential for derivative works. Note that last I checked many standards (like Ethernet) are based on patented technology.

Malc.