Microsoft snubbed on Sender ID

TwistedMetal · Sep 14, 2004, 09:14 AM

SOFTWARE KING Microsoft's anti-open source obsession seems to have killed chances of its anti-Spam Sender ID getting accepted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as a standard.

Ze Vole has refused to allow an Open Source licence for the Sender ID and instead wants to force users to sign for a free licence instead. It says it may want to patent some of the standard.

According to a statement from the IETF, Microsoft's insistence on keeping secret a possible patent application on its proposed technology was unacceptable.

Andrew Newton, one of two co-chairs of the working group, wrote in an e-mail to the group's discussion forum that the working group has reached a rough consensus that the patent claims should not be ignored. Open-source software groups, including those that manage Apache and the Debian distribution of Linux, took hit out at Microsoft's lack of clarity on issues of the company's intellectual property claims on the combined proposal, known as Sender ID.

Newton said that it is possible that Sender ID could be used as part of a standards-compliant tool for thwarting spam, but the IETF settled on a standard that does not include potential patent risk. The ruling allows for Vole to change its mind and remove licensing restrictions However that does not seem that likely.

A SpokesVole said that it would continue to develop its own proposal , Caller ID for E-mail. The company, however, will use the technique that it developed, know as Purported Responsible Address (PRA), to authenticate the source of e-mail messages. PRA and Sender Policy Framework (SPF), which was a key part of Sender ID, differ in the address that they check for authenticity. SPF uses the visible e-mail address of the sender, while the PRA technique checks the record against the most recent sender of the e-mail address. PRA says where the email recently came from while SPF identifies the original source.

Source: The Inquirer

Sep 14, 2004, 09:14 AM	#1
TwistedMetal MC John-117 Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 728 Rep Power: 0	Microsoft snubbed on Sender ID SOFTWARE KING Microsoft's anti-open source obsession seems to have killed chances of its anti-Spam Sender ID getting accepted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as a standard. Ze Vole has refused to allow an Open Source licence for the Sender ID and instead wants to force users to sign for a free licence instead. It says it may want to patent some of the standard. According to a statement from the IETF, Microsoft's insistence on keeping secret a possible patent application on its proposed technology was unacceptable. Andrew Newton, one of two co-chairs of the working group, wrote in an e-mail to the group's discussion forum that the working group has reached a rough consensus that the patent claims should not be ignored. Open-source software groups, including those that manage Apache and the Debian distribution of Linux, took hit out at Microsoft's lack of clarity on issues of the company's intellectual property claims on the combined proposal, known as Sender ID. Newton said that it is possible that Sender ID could be used as part of a standards-compliant tool for thwarting spam, but the IETF settled on a standard that does not include potential patent risk. The ruling allows for Vole to change its mind and remove licensing restrictions However that does not seem that likely. A SpokesVole said that it would continue to develop its own proposal , Caller ID for E-mail. The company, however, will use the technique that it developed, know as Purported Responsible Address (PRA), to authenticate the source of e-mail messages. PRA and Sender Policy Framework (SPF), which was a key part of Sender ID, differ in the address that they check for authenticity. SPF uses the visible e-mail address of the sender, while the PRA technique checks the record against the most recent sender of the e-mail address. PRA says where the email recently came from while SPF identifies the original source. Source: The Inquirer __________________ [color=red][/color]