Re: Work plan for Sender ID

> Sundwall would not say whether the IETF's censure would hinder the 
> company's
> quest to get its Caller ID proposal accepted as a de facto Internet 
> standard.
> But he did note that many participants stayed out of the vote on 
> Microsoft's
> involvement.
>
> "If you look at the number of contributors that (voted), it is very 
> small," he
> said."
>
> Full article at http://news.com.com/2100-1032-5364075.html
Additionally, InfoWorld today has an article with quotes from an email 
statement from Microsoft made on the issues -  a search for the quotes 
turned up nothing, so I surmise that it was an email likely sent 
directly to the reporter, or forwarded to the reporter from an original 
recipient.  I assume these are of interest to the group at this point 
because the information contained herein may have bearing on in what 
direction people want to go from here - please let me know if that is 
not the case:
"In an e-mail statement, Microsoft said that MARID's decision "does not 
mean Sender ID has been rejected," but that changes proposed by MARID 
will make the standard more flexible. Microsoft is "excited to continue 
our collaboration with industry stakeholders to help move this 
important authentication protocol forward" and sees a future in which 
"complementary technologies" will be used with Sender ID to fight spam.
...

In its statement, Microsoft said that the Sender ID framework has 
essentially been accepted, and that MARID's decision only means there 
will be "an alternative spoof checking mechanism to the proposed PRA 
check."
"While we would have preferred a single technical mechanism as the 
standard, we believe this proposal to allow multiple scopes in the 
protocol is a reasonable approach to provide additional choice and 
flexibility," Microsoft said in the statement."
---

Particularly taken with the quote from News.com, I read this as an 
indication that they plan to move forward on their own with Sender I.D. 
regardless of what recommendations or other standards may come from 
this group.  What their end goal is, and how this fits with the current 
recommendations here, I wouldn't hazard to say, and leave as an 
exercise to the reader.
Full article at:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/14/HNietfmsblow_1.html