On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:33:05PM -0500, wayne wrote:
|
| You might argue that MS systems like hotmail will check SenderID
| records, but I doubt this. Remember, these folks don't even check to
| see if the MAIL FROM domain even exists. CallerID was developed by
| the Exchange folks, not the hotmail folks. There is no reason to
| believe that hotmail will adopt this.
In August at the "Sender ID Summits" held at Redmond,
Microsoft demoed to about 150 people in the audience a
next-generation Hotmail UI that showed a big yellow bar
saying "This message was not authenticated by Sender ID".
I hate to be this blunt, but I'll say it anyway: if I am
heading in a different direction that you, it's probably
because I have access to information that you don't have, or
because I place different weights on certain assumptions.
Unfortunately a lot of that information I can't share
publicly for one of two reasons:
1) it's of a sensitive nature and nobody likes a blabbermouth
2) if you're planning a war, you can't invite the public.
In the last year I have flown, on average, two weeks out of
every month; I have visited and/or spoken with forty or
fifty ISPs, ESPs, and software vendors of every size on
three continents. I also have direct experience with a
customer base of significant size in domain hosting, email
forwarding, mailing list management, mailbox
pop/imap/webmail service, and so on. I'm taking all of
these angles into account, not just "what would Slashdot say?"
My assumptions I can defend, but if we disagree about them
there's not much I can say besides "well, obviously we have
different backgrounds." At that point the question is
whether we can find a way to agree to disagree. That's
basically where MARID ended up: "let the market decide".
Given that I may not be able to share all the information I
have, maybe the question we should really ask is whether we
agree on where we want to end up, even if we don't agree on
how to get there. My objective has always been to reach a
spam-free future based on open standards that everyone can
implement and that don't have to cost anyone anything. If I
take an indirect route to that future, well, that's part of
playing nicely with others: you have to compromise or they
won't want to play with you at all.
People who have a problem with me negotiating with Microsoft
should ask themselves why the ACLU defends unpopular
positions. Sometimes you have to protect unpleasant speech
to protect free speech. Sometimes you have to trade words
with people you don't like so you can avoid trading blows.