Slashdot Mirror


Sender-ID Back From The Dead

NW writes "Microsoft's Sender-ID standard has been left for the dead since the rejection earlier this fall by the IETF. According to a Reuters story, it has been revised and will be resubmitted to the IETF. Along the way, Microsoft managed to pick up AOL's endorsement of Sender-ID. My humble analysis appears here."

4 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Re:First Post by blowdart · · Score: 5, Informative
    It can only ever be used to tag spam

    What utter tosh.

    1. No-one is forcing you to publish SPF/SenderID records, so you can leave your domain unencumbered and SPF filters will never touch you
    2. If you have non-domain X sending MTAs you can always add them to your SPF record anyway
    3. You can always open that firewall to allow SMTP AUTH
    4. Relaying is not, in theory, a bad thing. Open news servers are not, in theory, a bad thing, gun ownership in theory is not a bad thing. But there are always those who will happily abuse facilities.

    Just because you can't use SNTP AUTH because of a firewall don't try to dictate how everyone else should use SPF.

  2. Re:What does Sender ID add to SPF? by Deorus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sender ID is just SPF on steroids. E.g.: SPF points out the systems which can be used to send E-mail from a given domain while sender ID adds an additional algorithm (the PRA) which verifies if a given E-mail forwarded by mailing lists, .forward files, or relays (to name a few examples) is legitumate. Mailing list hosts may not have permission to send E-mails from your host, but they can specifically tell who they are and that they are just forwarding agents, thus making themselves responsible for the message and leaving you (the receiver) with an option to block E-mail coming from a particular forwarding domain (e.g.: the mailing list's domain) or from a particular sender domain.

    In other words: the sender ID allows you to do almost everything you always did with your MTA but adds some authentication to the process. SPF alone would limit you to a single host or network, or force you to clearly specify which addresses could forward messages from your domain, which is not practical if you are using your ISP's domain to communicate with the Linux Kernel Mailing List, for example. Sender ID addresses this limitation.

  3. Re:What does Sender ID add to SPF? by Deorus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, my previous post is rather confusing, so I'll try to rewrite it.

    When you send a message from the authenticated host A to host B there may be forwarding agents (such as mailing lists, relays, etc.) routing your message, the message is not always direcly sent from host A to host B. With SPF you would be limited to that. You would have to mention (for example) all mailing lists in whom you are subscribed, which is not practical if you are not controlling the domain from where you send your messages. Sender ID addresses this limitation with PRA, an algorithm that computes the last responsible token, which may or may not be the sender MTA, thus allowing messages to be routed the same way they always have been.

    For more information about the PRA algorithm, check this PDF. I am sorry for my last post. Should use the preview button more often. Please do NOT mod my last post up.

  4. Re:AOL Endorses it, huh? by theCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Friendly mailer"? That's a laugh.

    AOL (and their properties) is the single worst email provider on the planet. They routinely drop email and often bounce legitimate email. They may claim they prevent 10 million quadrillion spams or something, but I'd guess that a good percentage (though not a majority or anything) are legitmate emails falling victim to their "policies".

    They use their large size to bully people around, like they did to you. If some small ISP was bouncing your mails for the same reason, would you have begged to get off their bounce list? AOL blocks mail from large swaths of IP space because they "might" be sending spam. Heck, I have RoadRunner (which is an AOL property), and I can't even send mail to other RoadRunner users because as a RoadRunner user I'm probably sending spam!

    I've had AOL bounce emails because I PGP signed them, which IMO is the best form of "sender-ID" there is (and anyone serious about getting rid of spam would support this, but very few actually do, probably because it would mean taking responsibility for the problem). But according to AOL, it's probably spam, so it got bounced! (in this case, it was a user setting to bounce mail with attachments, but shame on AOL for not realizing what a PGP signature was and allowing/endorsing it)

    AOL's policies are not conducive to a good Internet neighbor. AOL and their arrogant policies have always been bad for the Internet. Anything that AOL endorses automatically raises my suspicion. Nevermind the fact that as the OP stated, AOL popularized the idea of spam with their mass mailings and selling of email addresses (way back in the day before they realized what a bad idea that was).

    If you really want your personal email account to be like AOL, just setup a procmail filter that deletes/bounces half your mail.

    --
    "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown