Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Debian Project Rejects Sender-ID

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the two-strikes-down dept.

NW writes "Following on the heels of Apache Foundation taking a stance against Sender-ID, the Debian Project announced today their rejection of Sender-ID as well."

5 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. not possible for section 7 of the gpl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

  2. And for those of you wondering what it is... by the+pickle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Description of the Sender ID Framework from Microsoft.

    It would be so much nicer if people writing/editing these stories would link to stuff that isn't blindingly obvious to everyone.

    p

    --
    In Korea, long hair is for old people!
  3. No basic DNS changes by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Informative
    The changes to DNS involve adding a TXT record to the domain which lists the hosts authorized to forward mail for the domain. Nothing proprietary there, and anyone with control over their DNS can do it.

    Of course, if you have a DNS provider who won't let you make such changes, you probably need a different DNS provider!

  4. Re:Sender ID - hell, how about reverse dns? by Homology · · Score: 4, Informative
    If AOL and hotmail alone required valid everse DNS the rest of the world would follow suit in short order.

    Not very likely, for this would break large part of the e-mail infrastructure. There are many virtual hosters whose reverse DNS does not match the domain they are hosting. Or in my case with static IP home DNS that does resolves to something, but my domain name. And I suppose we can say bye, bye to many backup MX servers as well.

    What AOL sensibly require is :

    • If the sender's domain is the only domain sending mail from a specific IP address, we recommend that the reverse DNS entry (PTR Record) match the domain name (A Record), but we do not require it.
    • AOL does require that all connecting Mail Transfer Agents have established reverse DNS, regardless of whether it matches the domain.
    • Reverse DNS must be in the form of a fully-qualified domain name - reverse DNS containing in-addr.arpa are not acceptable, as these are merely placeholders for a valid PTR record. Reverse DNS consisting only of IP addresses are also not acceptable, as they do not correctly establish the relationship between domain and IP address.
    • /ul
  5. MS's stance goes clear to the top on this by optimus2861 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Browsing the mailing list, I came across this message from Matt Sergeant of MessageLabs, about a conversation he had with Craig Spietzle of MS. Notable excerpt:

    I pressed him: "Will you fix the license?". I never really got a confirmed yes or no, but my feeling was "no" when we ended the conversation. I suggested that they give their IP to the IETF (such as I believe there is precedence of - I know that IBM has committed patents to the public domain before in a similar act of openness), to which I was told that Craig believed this was a reasonable idea, but that Bill Gates himself had vetoed that idea because of the current focus on patent gathering and IPR issues at Microsoft.

    (emphasis added)