Mr. Wong,
Sender-ID is horrible and it will alter the landscape since Microsoft is the
author and hence, promotor. I'm so disturbed by all this, I will begin to
inform the FCC, the Media and all that have the power to get this stop
before it gets started. I've been in the mail business in every aspect,
far longer than you and I only say that because it is extremely disturbing
that all this is being ignored. If this proposal was from any other author,
but Microsoft, it wouldn't see any consideration whatsoever. But we are
talking Microsoft here. It will alter the landscape in more ways that
anyone anticipated.
Sender ID conflicts with many of the US ECPA provisions. There doesn't
seem to be much thought put into to see if it passes the legal muster.
SenderID is not a reliable concept and it promotes the obstruction of mail
delivery and it promotes local policies to be applied at the wrong
part of the mail operation. It promote post acceptance Local Policies
rejections ideas for any discriminatory whims beyond spam. Where do you
think "local policies" evolved from anyway? Not because it was a "neat"
idea. It all began with te 1986 US ECPA provisions to help address mail
delivery obstruction, mail tampering and privacy issues. I'm not just
blurting this out. It has many legal issues.
I urge people to review at how this concept of requiring mail to be accepted
by SMTP for delayed rejection on unreliable concepts and then leave it for
Local Policies to decide. We might kill spam, but will might be killing and
severely changing the reliability of the mail network just as well.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: "David Wall" <d(_dot_)wall(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
Cc: "MARID" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Sender identification is not the answer
While these inputs are very important, probably more
important in the grand scheme of things than some of the
technical discussions we've seen over the last few weeks, I
believe this discussion is unfortunately out of scope for
our WG. You might find a more receptive forum at ASRG.
http://asrg.sp.am/
The job of this working group is to produce proposals that
you may find philosophically unpalatable, but if you want to
campaign against these concepts your best course of action
may be to contact John Gilmore and the EFF.
cheers
meng
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:42:05PM -0700, David Wall wrote:
|
| As I said before, I don't believe this because all email that doesn't
have
| this identification stamp will be assumed to be suspect over time. In
the
| U.S., you can walk around with carrying identification.