Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed)

Oh, and the letter (to an elected representative) should be short, to
the point, and no more than one page (sorry) - but with an invitation
to contact you for more information, or even a pointer to a webpage
with all of the information.


Anne


On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:55:00 -0400, John Hinton <webmaster(_at_)ew3d(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> > Yes, and that would be very bad.
> >
> > John, will you please provide a brief of what you communicated with your
> > congressman's office?  Perhaps we can all come up with a template letter
> > or guideline to telephone conversation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > ~Jason
> Note one of the links in this email was to Meng Wong... hope he doesn't
> mind? Figured he would be better at answering things than myself. I must
> admit, I've not had a lot of time to closely follow every thing on this
> list, I only know that I wondered why we weren't checking IPs against
> mailservers years ago and SPF looked like a good cure. A starting point
> to a legitamate way to identify spammers and create 'reliable' blacklists.
>
> This message followed a phone call and was to simply summarize what had
> already been discussed.
>
> --------Begin message sent to Bob Goodlatte in Virginia who is very
> active in internet related issues--------
>
> First, to allow patents on software is a place where we do not want to
> go. If patents are allowed, every developer will have to have a legal
> team to insure they are not infringing on some 'particular line of
> code'. Allowing patents on software code is almost the equivalent of
> allowing patents on basic mathematical formulas. Somehow, I don't thing
> the patent office has enough expertise to properly evaluate such
> applications.
>
> The item which brings this to the forefront for me is Microsoft's recent
> application for patents with regards to an anti-spam system called
> Sender-ID.
>
> This began as a group which was working on a standard called SPF (sender
> policy framework). The basis of the system quickly, is that a SPF record
> would be added to the DNS of a domain. Then, when email was sent using
> that domain name as the sender, the mailserver IP was checked against
> this record to verify that in fact this email was sent by that domain
> from that server. I very simplistic system. Spammers could no longer
> phish for email addresses unless it was from a legitimate system,
> compromised computers (virus infected machines converted to mailservers)
> could no longer be useful for sending out masses of spam, as the SPF
> record would check the domain from which it was sent. ISPs could quickly
> find those machines and take them offline. Spammer would need to have
> SPF records on domains they register and use those domain's mailservers
> to send email. This would very quickly aid in the detection of a 'known'
> spammer and allow the use of very accurate blacklists. It would also run
> up the cost of spamming, as they would almost on a daily basis need to
> have a new domain name and a new IP.
>
> A group called MARID worked very hard with the major players on the
> internet, AOL, Earthlink, Comcast, Netscape, MSN and so on, and most
> were 'in' with SPF. Microsoft however was going in a slightly different
> direction with its Caller-ID for email system. MARID worked with MS
> toward a common goal so that MSN would also be onboard, as there is
> obviously a need for 'all' major players to put this into effect to make
> it an internet standard.
>
> SPF and Caller-ID merged into what was named Sender-ID. A basic date of
> October 1, 2004 was set as the time to have SPF/Sender-ID records within
> all domain's DNS records. A 'go live' date was set for January 1st.
> Every aspect was rolling along very well, AOL had already published
> their Sender-ID records and most of the major players had a loose
> agreement to do this along with other things such as monitoring their
> users to put a huge dent in the spam problem.
>
> At the last minute, Microsoft applied for a patent on Sender-ID. The
> contents were not public record at least for some time and I really have
> little knowledge regarding the patent process. But, AOL quickly pulled
> back from Sender-ID and decided upon SPF classic, which works as well.
> Yesterday, the MARID group seems to think that the patent also affects
> SPF, and possibly older software such as Fetchmail and Procmail. Again,
> I'm not very informed to this end. All I know is this patent application
> has all but put a stop to this fantastic idea for limiting spam and
> allowing the creation of 'useful and accurate' blacklist.
>
> Please use this as a launching point for putting a stop to this patent
> Microsoft has applied for and to further study a moratorium on software
> patents before all the developers in this country are tied down with
> legal issues.
>
> Useful links on this issue:
>
> The basis to the SPF/SenderID system
> http://spf.pobox.com/
>
> A very good take on what has happened and a site with lots of articles
> regarding the history of progress/regress.
> http://www.moongroup.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=2
>
> SPF mailing list archives.
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
>
> You may need or want to sign up for this mailing list. The participants
> are available and there is a lot of knowledge here.
>
> Meng Weng Wong is the best person to contact on this whole issue as most
> was his brainchild. He is very active on the above mailing list.
> mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com
>
> General talk about software patents.
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/09/09/1612239
>
> Please let me know if I can be of any help whatsoever with any
> information regarding this issue. I can be reached at:
>
> webmaster(_at_)ew3d(_dot_)com
> 540-997-5207
>
> Again, I am not very knowledgeable with regards to patents, but I do
> understand pretty well the DNS system and how this can potentially tie
> back to email servers to provide an excellent fight against spam.
>
> Please do understand that the timing on this issue is critical as the
> patent which could do huge damage at the moment has been applied for.
> -----------End message sent----------------
>
> Let the battle begin!
>
> Best,
> John Hinton
>
>
>
> -------
> Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
> http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
> SPF and Sender ID.
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
> subscription,
> please go to 
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com