Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Releases 'Caller-ID For Email' Specs

Posted by simoniker on from the avon-calling dept.

gfilion writes "Microsoft has released a draft specification for Caller-ID for email, 'to address the widespread problem of domain spoofing' - the concept is similar to SPF, but is using XML. There's already an Caller-ID to SPF converter in the works. A few weeks ago, Microsoft discussed compatibility between the projects with Meng Weng Wong (SPF's project leader), but most SPF users are against using XML, so nothing has come of it thus far." We recently covered a brief article mentioning Microsoft's anti-spam work, though this is a clearer indication of their intentions. Update: 02/26 21:36 GMT by T : NewsForge is carrying a brief article with FSF counsel Eben Moglen's take on the draft; Moglen says it is "encumbered with unclear and unnecessary patent license claims."

11 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. sucks / rocks by jilbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hate XML, and a quick google reveals:

    XML sucks = about 215,000
    XML rocks = about 174,000

    I'm pleased to see I am in the majority - I thought its buzzword status would have rated it higher.

    1. Re:sucks / rocks by stanmann · · Score: 5, Funny

      What you were looking for is:

      XML Rules = about 2,580,000

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    2. Re:sucks / rocks by jimi1283 · · Score: 5, Funny
      no no no, you've gotta do it with quotes, otherwise you just get a lot of .xml files with the other key words in them:

      "XML rocks" = 79
      "XML sucks" = 671
      "XML rules" = 5630 (obviously they're actually talking about rules here, and not commenting on quality - perceived or actual)
      "XML pwns j00" = 0

      Obviously the poor kids using 1337 speak have obviously never picked up the standard...

      --
      because what hunting rifle has a bayonet lug
  2. bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In General Ackbar's legendary words'It's a trap!'

  3. Re:At least by NightRain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could anyone who moderated it up provide a reason other than they're bashing MS, that's +1 baby!

    Well no. They can't comment if they moderate now, can they?

    Ray

  4. New MS commercial by pixelbend · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can you spam me now? Good.

    --
    Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
  5. Re:Why not? by terrox · · Score: 1, Funny

    I dont have a phone.

  6. What XML REALLY is.... by jmlyle · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's is not a data format.

    It's not a framework.

    XML is a badly-formed roman numeral.

    It should probably be written "MXL".

    But even that might be a problem. You might need to use the Unicode Standard symbols: 2169,216F,216C

    --
    I have misplaced my pants.
  7. Re:Imagine when Hotmail gets this by dspfreak · · Score: 1, Funny
    Wow, that license is... viral.

    --
    "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G. K. Chesterton
  8. Re:Danger! Read the fine print! by LordKaT · · Score: 2, Funny

    You work for SCO, don't you? ;)

    --LordKaT

  9. Somewhat, for consumers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    And hell yes, for telcos.

    They sold CallerID to consumers.
    Then they sold CallerID blocking to telemarketers
    Then they sold blocked-CallerID call blocking to consumers.

    And the cycle continues, or would have if the do-not-call list didn't enter the picture. For a while there it was a real arms race, with the telcos getting rich selling 'weapons' to both sides.