Comments on: Microsoft reworks antispam spec to silence critics

Industry group and AOL had turned their backs on Sender ID. With rewrite, AOL is back in the fold.

Makes use of is NOT compatible with

"Microsoft's Hamlin said Monday that the company has revised Sender ID by making it backward-compatible with 100,000-plus SPF records already published."

Sender ID PRA checks are NOT 100% compatible with SPF records. The new version of the spec says that Sender ID will make use of these records, but the use is not consistent with what the publishers of these records had in mind when they published.

Perfectly valid e-mail that would pass an SPF check can be rejected by Sender ID. SPF record publishers now have no choice. They must either:

1. Delete their SPF records (damaging both technologies).

2. Figure out how to do Sender ID.

This record hijacking by Microsoft and company makes it impossible to do SPF (a free solution, not encumbered by patents) without getting involved in Sender ID (Microsoft Patent Pending).

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Great Analysis. CNET Hire This Fellow. ..

Scott,

Killer conclusion:

This record hijacking by Microsoft and company makes it impossible to do SPF (a free solution, not encumbered by patents) without getting involved in Sender ID (Microsoft Patent Pending).

What does Meng make of this?

Thanks for the insight.

Makes use of is NOT compatible with

"Microsoft's Hamlin said Monday that the company has revised Sender ID by making it backward-compatible with 100,000-plus SPF records already published."

Sender ID PRA checks are NOT 100% compatible with SPF records. The new version of the spec says that Sender ID will make use of these records, but the use is not consistent with what the publishers of these records had in mind when they published.

Perfectly valid e-mail that would pass an SPF check can be rejected by Sender ID. SPF record publishers now have no choice. They must either:

1. Delete their SPF records (damaging both technologies).

2. Figure out how to do Sender ID.

This record hijacking by Microsoft and company makes it impossible to do SPF (a free solution, not encumbered by patents) without getting involved in Sender ID (Microsoft Patent Pending).

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Great Analysis. CNET Hire This Fellow. ..

Scott,

Killer conclusion:

This record hijacking by Microsoft and company makes it impossible to do SPF (a free solution, not encumbered by patents) without getting involved in Sender ID (Microsoft Patent Pending).

What does Meng make of this?

Thanks for the insight.

[ttul]

So what -- it's too late Microsoft

It's too little too late, Microsoft. The world has SPF, which is "good enough" to solve the problem spf was designed to solve: joe-jobbing. The damage that was done with the whole patent mess has completely removed any credibility Microsoft once had in this area. Who can trust an organization that participates in what it calls an open standards process, only to unleash unspecified patent attacks once the standard is adopted?

And in any case, SPF is nothing compared to the technology developed by MailChannels (www.mailchannels.com).

[ttul]

So what -- it's too late Microsoft

It's too little too late, Microsoft. The world has SPF, which is "good enough" to solve the problem spf was designed to solve: joe-jobbing. The damage that was done with the whole patent mess has completely removed any credibility Microsoft once had in this area. Who can trust an organization that participates in what it calls an open standards process, only to unleash unspecified patent attacks once the standard is adopted?

And in any case, SPF is nothing compared to the technology developed by MailChannels (www.mailchannels.com).

[Sumatra-Bosch]

It's Like the Mansons Cleaning the Forks Before the Dinner Party

MSFT is sounding more and more like an insane asylum for IP laywers with traumatic brain injury every day.

Let's get this straight: The whole world is supposed to believe a convicted monopolist with a record of IP theft and astroturfing using the stolen identities of dead people (see the Utah attorney general's case during the anti-trust trials) has unquestionably valid patents for email technologies in an industrial art space occupied by thousands of companies. And the whole world is supposed to ratify that without question and then what? Mail forwarding is broken and the spammers still win. Perfect, that's what everyone wants. Settles that.

The fact that this is being reported as anything but situation comedy is a crime against every company (and engineer) that ever contributed anything to the Internet's email architecture.

CNET and reporters from all over the world need to ask the following questions of people other than Microsoft. . .

Are MSFT's intellectual property claims at all valid?

They've never been tested in court.

Could they survive any kind of test? Which claims would fall first?

What would be the precipitate of wide scale ratification of their claims to the IP space? To the funcationality of email?

If MSFT were to assert positively (sue someone) later on, what companies are rich in IP in the industrial art space who would be forced into the field to defend their own IP?

The press like brain-damaged monkeys simply report MSFT's spurious claims with no comment from an independent IP counsel.

Reporters from Road and Track would certainly go after Bendix if they tried the same thing with automotive breaking technology.

In the first instance, MSFT's proposition is preposterous.

Reporting this as news is a waste of great comedic material, CNET. If you guys had a sitcom, MSFT's OSP would be good for 6 episodes.

[Sumatra-Bosch]

It's Like the Mansons Cleaning the Forks Before the Dinner Party

MSFT is sounding more and more like an insane asylum for IP laywers with traumatic brain injury every day.

Let's get this straight: The whole world is supposed to believe a convicted monopolist with a record of IP theft and astroturfing using the stolen identities of dead people (see the Utah attorney general's case during the anti-trust trials) has unquestionably valid patents for email technologies in an industrial art space occupied by thousands of companies. And the whole world is supposed to ratify that without question and then what? Mail forwarding is broken and the spammers still win. Perfect, that's what everyone wants. Settles that.

The fact that this is being reported as anything but situation comedy is a crime against every company (and engineer) that ever contributed anything to the Internet's email architecture.

CNET and reporters from all over the world need to ask the following questions of people other than Microsoft. . .

Are MSFT's intellectual property claims at all valid?

They've never been tested in court.

Could they survive any kind of test? Which claims would fall first?

What would be the precipitate of wide scale ratification of their claims to the IP space? To the funcationality of email?

If MSFT were to assert positively (sue someone) later on, what companies are rich in IP in the industrial art space who would be forced into the field to defend their own IP?

The press like brain-damaged monkeys simply report MSFT's spurious claims with no comment from an independent IP counsel.

Reporters from Road and Track would certainly go after Bendix if they tried the same thing with automotive breaking technology.

In the first instance, MSFT's proposition is preposterous.

Reporting this as news is a waste of great comedic material, CNET. If you guys had a sitcom, MSFT's OSP would be good for 6 episodes.