Is Sender-ID finished?
p2pnet.net News:- Spammers are going to be disappointed.
It seems the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has officially stomped the proposed Sender ID specification being pumped up by Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo and Earthlink.
Sender ID is meant to put the mockers on spamming.
But it was recently revealed that spammers are trying to make their messages appear ‘real’ by adopting Sender Policy Framework (SPF).
So is Sender ID completely useless?
It depends on who you talk to.
But the IETF’s decision, "was apparently based on Microsoft’s insistence on basing much of Sender ID’s workings on proprietary technology," says an InternetWeek.com story.
"While the company was willing to license the technology to all comers for free, there was general suspicion, especially in the open source community, that the situation would change over time and that Microsoft would hold too much control over how the standard evolved going forward."
Would Microsoft do a thing like that?
SPF is supposed to to block spoofing and make it easier to identify fraudulent email scams and phishing by authenticating the origin of an email.
==================
See:-
disappointed – Spammers love Sender-ID, p2pnet, September 10
officially stomped - IETF Reportedly Rejects Sender ID, InternetWeek.com, September 14, 2004
September 14th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
Microsuck just wants their crap on every corner, so people would have to license it all, same as the new high defination format for blue-ray dvds. Standards that require a license to use should be dumped promptly.
September 15th, 2004 at 8:21 am
Take that M$crosoft.
Trying to pass patents (pending) in a standard that should be implemented by all.
Oh, but it’s free for now!
You just can’t redistribute it to anyone!
So when you’ll want bugs fixed you’ll have to agree to whatever M$ wants!
Can’t even fix it yourself, now that would just be selfish!
Think of the poor(sic) M$ investors! They want more money!
Also, yay! Comments are back!
Furthermore, we’re not Anonymous Cowards anymore.
We’re “Reader’s Write”. Ok.