[epub] Re: For The Record, Will Microsoft Own Email?

["John Glube" <jbglube@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Lois Carter Fay Sent: October 5, 2004 12:08 PM
 
|But read this...
|
|http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040905212754195

Yes, I am familiar with the analysis. It was written prior
to:

* 10.09.04 when MS made it clear their patent did not apply
to "mail from" checking on the MARID list;

* 21.09.04 when MS issued a press statement saying they may
have an IPR claim in "mail from" checking; and

* 25.09.04 when MS issued a statement which was ambiguous
on the topic, (I am being polite.)

It was also written prior to:

* 28.09.04 when MS told Larry Rosen to "take a hike" on his
request for changes to the MS draft patent license as
confirmed by Mr. Rosen in his submission on 30.09.04 in
response to the request for comment (RFC) for comment by
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Institute
of Science & Technology (NIST) for the Sender
Authentication Summit;

* 30.09.04 when MS filed a submission in response to the
same RFC informing the FTC and NIST that the draft patent
license was fully justified under the IETF rules and was
acceptable for an open standard; and,

* 30.09.04 when VeriSign filed a submission in response to
the same RFC informing the FTC and NIST that the form of
draft patent license had been acceptable in the past to
software vendors.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/emailauthentication/

My point is that MS has publicly committed itself to what
it calls the Sender ID Framework and in my view is using
the draft patent license to drive a wedge in the market.

Perhaps most disconcerting about the MS submission is that
it considers the records published in compliance with the
Sender ID Framework to be Sender ID records.

Simply put, MS plans to take SPF and use it for its own
purposes, controlling how the records are published, while
getting folks who want to develop software applications
using the Sender ID Framework to sign its draft license
form which is not compatible with open standards.

Now, people may say:

* Microsoft won't get away with this;

* There is no cause for concern;

* It won't happen; 

* The patents won't be granted; 

* One corporation can't control email; and,

* The FTC will step in.

Yes, I understand there are competing proposals for
authentication methods which check the sender's designated
IP addresses. 

Yes, I appreciate that a new IETF working group
will be formed to deal with an alternative to SPF/Sender-ID
called Compatible Low-overhead Email Authentication and
Responsibility, CLEAR and AOL is prepared to test this
approach.

Yes, I appreciate that a new IETF working group
will be formed to deal with message authentication using
signed signatures called MASS.

Yahoo! has submitted a proposed standard, along with
Microsoft, CISCO and a few others.

Yes, I understand that Yahoo! is willing to license
DomainKeys under a patent license which fully meets the
open standards alliance model. 

However, the problem is there is no "perfect solution."

So, when an organization the size of Microsoft has the
power, will and legislative clout, along with the
willingness to take on public opinion to get its way, then
... 

I ask myself, do I want one private corporation being the
Internet's post master general?

Now, if people do want Microsoft to take on this role to
deal with UBE, viruses and the like, hey ...

But, if people don't want one private corporation
controlling the Internet's common ground, then speak up now
... because after it happens, it will be too late.

Why is this important to online newsletter publishers? Like
getting your publication delivered?

Under the sender authentication format, the rules at the
big ISPs will become simple:

* good email gets through the recipient's gateway filters;
and,

* bad email gets rejected.

How do we tell if the email is good or bad? Are you a
Bonded Sender and have a VeriSign accredited domain? Great,
we will let your email through the recipient's gateway
filters.

(Keep in mind, because each mail box owner can set her own
filtering options, no reputation or accreditation service
can guarantee delivery to the recipient's inbox. This still
remains up to the individual subscriber.)

This will apply to Hotmail, MSN and Yahoo! AOL does its own
thing. As to the others, their lips are sealed.:-)

ISPs and network administrators which rely upon
SpamAssassin will continue to do the "filtering dance,"
giving Bonded Sender a certain benefit. Not much, but some.

Now, folks will say, but surely there will be options. Oh
yes, there will be. 

I have heard through the grape vine that within the next
couple of weeks an announcement will be made concerning an
accreditation service focused on the micro-business owner
with a special place for newsletter publishers with good
connections.

But, all providers of these services will have to listen to
the wants and needs of the receivers. So, if one private
corporation controls the keys, you listen to the wants and
needs of that corporation.

So, the question is simple "do publishers care?" "Does it
matter?" If the answer is yes, then do something. If the
answer is no, then fine.

John

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

For The Record Will Microsoft Own Email
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/wme.html