On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 08:58, jonathan(_dot_)curtis(_at_)bell(_dot_)ca wrote:
>>
I am sure that we can come up with multiple conspiracy
theories for this. For now, lets stay above the fray and
assume that perhaps Microsoft was acting in good faith.
Descending into conspiracy theories will not make this any
better, and quite the opposite, will make the entire
discussion appear unprofessional.
Microsoft knows what the issues are, they are receiving
comments from multiple people and sources. The decision on
the license is upto them.
The decision on the standard on the other hand is upto the us.
Yakov
IMHO...(short version)
I will recommending that we move forward with the implementation of
SenderID within Bell Canada (over 35,000 domains) as I believe the
licensing component has zero to do with the technology and cost of
implemention. The support that Microsoft will generate over night for
this solution will drive global adoptation - something this solution is
going to need to be successful.
Gee, amazing how the Internet ever managed to come
into existence without Microsoft!
A big company's backing does not a successful protocol
make. More likely, if certain key ISPs were to start checking
MARID records and making actual decisions based upon their
content, this would drive support for the protocol. From
-rationale-00:
7.2. Marketing Analysis: Chasm Theory
The designed product, and the augmentations that surround it, must
survive each phase of Geoffrey Moore's Chasm model.
The core specification should be attractive enough to the visionaries
to seed the fax effect by publishing records and writing libraries.
After an initial round of discovery and experimentation by the early
adopters, the mainstream must be encouraged to start publishing
records. This is the first chasm, on the publishing side. They need
the assurance that publishing records will, first, do no harm.
The beachhead for crossing the publishing-side chasm turned out to be
industry leaders. When enough well known domains published records,
they seeded the second round of the fax effect. The second round turns
potential receiver-side implementors into actual implementors:
the early adopters here are the makers of antispam email appliances and
edge MTAs such as CipherTrust, IronPort, Postini, and Brightmail.
They are ideally positioned to implement Sender ID checking on inbound
mail and have a business reason to do so.
The second chasm, on the receiving side, requires major ISPs to start
implementing inbound checking. Their initial motivation is to reduce
the costs of whitelisting. Major ISPs negotiate email peering
relationships with major senders and maintain, often by hand,
whitelists of IP addresses. Conversion to Sender ID-based whitelisting
is an obvious step. Note that while Sender ID is often viewed as an
anti-forgery mechanism, using it as a whitelisting mechanism is simply
the other side of the coin.
After these chasms are crossed, there remains the challenge of getting
publishers to transition through increasing levels of severity: from
"?" to "~" to "-". This effort requires cooperation from receivers.
I see no mention of Microsoft in there anywhere!
My apologies if I dripped any sarcasm on you.
Ryan
--
HELO, my name is root... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!