Saturday, September 04, 2004
Microsoft still burdening anti-spam standards with licencing requirements
Well, it looks like Microsoft is up to it's old Caller-ID tricks with the child of Caller-ID and SPF. Sender ID was supposed to be the best of both standard proposals. It looks like Microsoft felt that a licence was "better" than no licence. I wonder what Meng Wong thinks of that.
Also, what is the IETF doing considering encumbered technologies for inclusion in any kind of "open" standard?
Sender ID loses supporters - ZDNet UK News
Also, what is the IETF doing considering encumbered technologies for inclusion in any kind of "open" standard?
Sender ID loses supporters - ZDNet UK News
# posted by Sam @ 8:43 PM | 
Comments:
<< Home
Hi Sam!
Seems we can stop worrying about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/13/ietf_bounces_sender_id/It's funny how MS will sometimes stand in their own way. Or, rather, how their laywers will sometimes stand in their way.
Manni
Seems we can stop worrying about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/13/ietf_bounces_sender_id/It's funny how MS will sometimes stand in their own way. Or, rather, how their laywers will sometimes stand in their way.
Manni
# posted by 
: 1:50 AM
: 1:50 AM
Yeah, when I read up on MS's original Caller-ID, I immediately commented on the licencing requirements, and only later read the protests of other groups (I think GNU's lawyer had a few things to say).
When I read about Sender-ID, I assumed this had been resolved, based on SPF's unencumbered status, if nothing else. When I read it wasn't, I really did hope that the IETF would take note. I probably read about Sender-ID based on a press-release or something well before the IETF and Marid had a chance to see an actual proposal. It looks like there was just a bit of delay on all of this information getting nice and public.
Post a Comment
When I read about Sender-ID, I assumed this had been resolved, based on SPF's unencumbered status, if nothing else. When I read it wasn't, I really did hope that the IETF would take note. I probably read about Sender-ID based on a press-release or something well before the IETF and Marid had a chance to see an actual proposal. It looks like there was just a bit of delay on all of this information getting nice and public.
<< Home
