----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Atkinson" <bobatk(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
To: "Alan DeKok" <aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org>; <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use
I can tell you that, having worked on Caller ID for more than a year and
a half, and having had it basically stable since a year ago,
Are you talking about a Caller ID SMTP call back system, a Caller ID
Verifications for Dial up Phones or the Microsoft Caller ID for Email Policy
(MCEP) thing? Incidently, Caller ID is a generic terminology and acroymn
and I think it is moronic for a billion dollar corporation to begin using
the terminology as their own as if it never existed in the first place.
(Gawd, I hate that!) Never mind the fact, it has been in used since the
anals of smart modems and hosting systems, look it up in Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Caller%20ID
1. n: A telephone service that provides for subscribers the name and
telephone number of a caller, which appear on a display as the call is being
received.
2. n: a small display that will show you the telephone number of the party
calling you.
3. (CID) A feature of some modems.
Just wish to make this is a public policy record.
I continually and routinely keep coming across valuable new things that
people will want to say about these sorts of policies.
If you want examples, take a look at the attributes we have on the
Caller ID <m> element to today. Or think about what one might wish to
say about ones willingness or desire to participate in forensics
gathering to support prosecution of spammers. And so on.
I'm quite convinced that this sort of innovation will only pick up, once
this stuff is used more heavily.
The ones that we can think of before we spec-freeze we can build in. The
other ones need a robust extensibility mechanism for.
In my view, it is complicated solution for a relatively simple problem, one
with limited scope and half-life. After all, you do expect it to work,
right?
In the end, a overhead reduces down to a redundancy.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com