wayne wrote:
Another area of concern that I have is that it appears that MS may
well be succeeding in convincing the world that "SenderID is an
updated replacement for SPF" and that people only need to think in
terms of SenderID. I do google news searches ever day for SPF and
SenderID. It used to be that almost all news stories that referenced
SenderID also referenced SPF, but in the last few weeks that has
changed and now most at least half of the stores only mention
SenderID, and few stories mention SPF without also mentioning
SenderID.
Thanks Wayne!
As for this last statement, I expected it and more... here's my
'repeating' theme, that I just can't resist about once every few months
or more often.
Basically, Microsoft has all the money they need and an installation
base which allows them to 'promote' almost anything they want (can you
say Netscape?). My greatest fear is that the 'world' will go with
Sender-ID. That's why I keep bringing up the website. You can build the
best thing in the world and hide it in the attic and no one ever uses
it. Self promotion is simply a must... Seems that the website is the
least expensive tool.. and that tool is in the attic with the product.
There was a concerted effort to bring us SPF... if only there could be a
concerted effort to bring us a SPF website. I'm terribly afraid that we
will wind up with Sender-ID... licenses... then suddenly once it is at
saturation... some little change to the spec, and we all must run MS
servers (unix FPSEs are coming up on EOL). Follow the money and use
whatever we can to gain any advantage. What if...... a new version of
Outlook had a Sender-ID specific spam filter? End users aren't going to
care about the tech, they are only going to want the filter and tell
sysadmins with 'their money' to install it.
Hours and hours have gone into the creation of SPF. It seems an
irresponsible waste of time to not sell it, when maybe only 1% of the
time spent is all that's needed for the website. I bet just one week of
a concerted effort, stepping down to do 'lowly website work' would do
the trick. Geez folks, you're obviously brilliant... so 'publish'!
Respectfully Submitted (as I have no right to make these statements),
John Hinton