In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E5DBAE9(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
I've founded a site dedicated to reasons against using Microsoft's
Caller-ID for E-mail. I'm looking for comments with any additional
reasons that you guys can think of for choosing an open, unpatented
solution over a proprietary, controlled architecture,
This is clearly about the anti-Microsoft agenda of one individual
and not about promoting SPF or helping to reduce spam.
There are technical and political problems with C-ID, and this website
points out these problems. I don't see much MS bashing there,
although it is obviously biased, I saw nothing that was false.
There are also technical and political problems with SPF, SRS,
libspf-alt, etc. I have no problems with people writing up web pages
that point out problems with those things either, but discussions of
C-ID and SRS should take place elsewhere.
I think that the idea of a campaign like this is a totaly crackpot
idea and that any attempt to persue it would backfire. It would
rightly appear that supporters of the campaign considered their
anti-Microsoft agenda more important than solving the spam problem.
Nice ad-hominem there Phill....
-wayne