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."
because MS will charge an insane fee for licenses, but MS won't mention this
MS won't charge an insane fee. They won't charge any fee, and they'll use that as part of their argument that the open source community is a bunch of whiners with not-invented-here syndrome.
What they will do license their patent under no-fee terms that nevertheless exclude any Free Software from using it. Packages under BSD-like license, and commerical packages, will be fine but anything similar to the GPL will be incompatible with the MS patent license.
Basically, they're testing a new variation on the tried and true "Embrace-Extend-Extinguish" formula, only the incompatibilities are legal, not technical.
Or not... mabye with their renewed attempt to get Sender ID adopted they'll provide kindlier license terms? I'm not holding my breath.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What are you talking about? Why is that relevant? Didn't you see "Microsoft" in the article summary? And, as if that wasn't a clear enough message what to think, it also said "AOL." Sender ID is bad bad bad. Not only won't it work, it represents the most insidious kind of fascism. An open source solution would obviously be better, and more liberating.
Slashdot.... Fuck yeah!
Matt Daemon.
From what I've seen, AOL has a large amount of respect in the Anti-Spam community.
Let me first expand on my original statement. Wall Street does not look highly upon AOL: they dramatically overpaid for Netscape, a division that is, for all intensive purposes, dead; they were involved in one of the most under-reported merger scams of the past decade (Time Warner, a long-profitable company was, many believe, duped); and their growth prospects are extremely limited. They've proved their inability to display original content, and the slow atrophy of their user-base has begun.
The user community, too, has a seemingly endless list of complains--those who remember their growth problems (myself included), the constant busy-signals, buggy and bloated software, high prices, and extremely poor technical support--they place the blame soley with AOL, regardless of who is at fault.
But you argue that the anti-spam community respects AOL? I would disagree. True, they've pursued legal action against several high-profile spammers, but I would normally expect far more from a company with legal abilities such as theirs. They've acted in their own interest, and not in the interest of their users (not surprising, of course, as their obligation is to the shareholder, and not the consumer).
AOL could have, and indeed should have done more; they, however, have remained largely apathetic.
An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
What utter tosh.
Just because you can't use SNTP AUTH because of a firewall don't try to dictate how everyone else should use SPF.
Think about the consequences of that. Even if Microsoft follows through on its promise to make the license available "for free" to anybody, it means that if you buy a Microsoft mailer or a mailer from a sublicensee, you can just install it and run it. If you install an "open source" mailer, however, your legal department needs to execute a licensing agreement with Microsoft's legal department. The costs and delays resulting from that alone make the "open source" mailer uncompetitive, no matter how much better it may be than Microsoft's products.
That is why the official open source definition does not allow such patents: if software implements such a patented invention and requires a licensing agreement with Microsoft, that software simply is not "open source", even if it it is distributed under the text of an open source license--the existence of the patent and licensing requirement makes it not open source.
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.
I've been in the anti-spam community for years, currently professionally so, and my respect for AOL is both recent and shallow. As a force against spammers, they're a Johnny-come-lately, and I remember well the days not so long ago when the only spam AOL cared about was inbound spam, but outbound spam was a complete non-issue to them. Inside of AOL was one of the safest places for a spammer to be, once upon a time.
:-)
There was a spam ring operating *inside* of AOL in the late 1990s that routinely joe-jobbed the ISP I was working for at the time. Entreaties to AOL fell on deaf ears. This joe-job went on for about a year, almost non-stop. They seem to have chosen us because we were very effective at blocking their spew and our 550s weren't always polite
I believed then, and believe now, that the only way a spam ring could operate so brazenly for so long and in the face of all complaints, was if it was an inside job: a spam ring being run by AOL employees, possibly without the knowledge of AOL management, but almost certainly with the complicity of the AOL abuse department; it could even have been them doing it.
I freely admit that I cannot prove any of this and it is all conjecture based upon circumstantial evidence, but lest you start sniggering about tinfoil hats, let me tell you the final chapter in this saga.
After about a year of this almost constant joe-jobbing, my then-employer was bought by a much larger ISP and hosting company, one with enough guns/money/lawyers to make even AOL pay attention. We, the beleaguered engineering department of this smallish ISP, where I was at the time the especially beleaguered postmaster, took our plight to our new parent company's abuse department, who said they would try to help. After not getting much farther than we did, they put us in touch with our new parent company's legal department, who didn't say they would try to help. They said they *would* help.
And lo and behold, not long after the legal department got involved, the spam just stopped. Not just the job-jobbing, but also the large amount of spam directed at our customers from the same spam ring. It went from thousands of direct messages (for an ISP with less than 50,000 customers that was a lot) and thousands more joe-job bounces every day to nothing. Zero. Not a single mail from that ring ever reared its ugly head on our network again during the further three years I worked there.
How could such a thing happen, after constant whining from AOL that they were powerless to prevent it (that was before they started ignoring us entirely)? I can think of only one plausible way, with two scenarios. In both, it's an inside job.
Variation one: after our new legal department took up our cause, that got AOL's attention to a sufficient degree that an actual investigation was opened, the perps were caught, and they were all fired. The trouble with this scenario is, if they were fired, why did they not joe-job us even harder in retaliation for losing their jobs?
Scenario 2: after our new legal department took up the cause, words were spoken to the proper people and it was made clear that they had to leave us alone and find some other victim because we were no longer some piss-ant regional ISP in a niche market, but now part of a big, strong company that could and would sue them if they didn't back off.
Needless to say, I find one of these scenarios far more likely than the other, and I find my respect for AOL still a bit thin, even though they have gone after some spammers and successfully sued them. Their new embrace of the still patent-encumbered Sender-ID doesn't exactly raise them in my estimation.
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.
"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