Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam than it does with curbing Open Source Software development by making mailing lists such as these expensive to operate? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net
Tom Eastep wrote:>Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam than it >does with curbing Open Source Software development by making mailing lists >such as these expensive to operate? > > >I''ve not reviewed the Microsoft Caller ID specifications yet. Where does it say they want you to pay for email?
On Friday 05 March 2004 02:52 pm, Matt Burleigh wrote:> Tom Eastep wrote: > >Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam > > than it does with curbing Open Source Software development by making > > mailing lists such as these expensive to operate? > > I''ve not reviewed the Microsoft Caller ID specifications yet. Where does > it say they want you to pay for email?I was referring to the comments by BG that are being reported in the press today, not to any specification. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net
On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 06:52, Matt Burleigh wrote:> Tom Eastep wrote: > > >Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam than it > >does with curbing Open Source Software development by making mailing lists > >such as these expensive to operate? > > > > > > > I''ve not reviewed the Microsoft Caller ID specifications yet. Where does > it say they want you to pay for email?http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html "An opinion is like an asshole - everybody has one." - Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan, The Dead Pool - 1988.
Tom Eastep wrote:> Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam > than it does with curbing Open Source Software development by making > mailing lists such as these expensive to operate? > > -TomMore like Microsoft twisting (stealing) an Open Source idea and turning it into a revenue stream. Sound familiar? FWIW: Take a look at SPF. To me, this is a "conceptually" similar approach to what Microsoft proposes. In fact, Microsoft actually mentioned SPF in the "references" section of their Caller-ID proposal. Although it was the last page. http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html Steve Cowles
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Cowles, Steve wrote:> Tom Eastep wrote: > > Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam > > than it does with curbing Open Source Software development by making > > mailing lists such as these expensive to operate? > > > > -Tom > > More like Microsoft twisting (stealing) an Open Source idea and turning it > into a revenue stream. Sound familiar? > > FWIW: Take a look at SPF. To me, this is a "conceptually" similar approach > to what Microsoft proposes. In fact, Microsoft actually mentioned SPF in the > "references" section of their Caller-ID proposal. Although it was the last > page. > > http://spf.pobox.com/intro.htmlON the Newbies list, Francesca brought up SPF -- I concur that SPF is promising and I''m not surprised that M$ is trying to "embrace and extend" it. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net
At 02.51 06/03/2004, Tom Eastep wrote:>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Cowles, Steve wrote: > > > Tom Eastep wrote: > > > Am I the only one thinking that this proposal has less to do with spam > > > than it does with curbing Open Source Software development by making > > > mailing lists such as these expensive to operate? > > > > > > -Tom > > > > More like Microsoft twisting (stealing) an Open Source idea and turning it > > into a revenue stream. Sound familiar? > > > > FWIW: Take a look at SPF. To me, this is a "conceptually" similar approach > > to what Microsoft proposes. In fact, Microsoft actually mentioned SPF > in the > > "references" section of their Caller-ID proposal. Although it was the last > > page. > > > > http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html > >ON the Newbies list, Francesca brought up SPF -- I concur that SPF is >promising and I''m not surprised that M$ is trying to "embrace and extend" >it.as a long date postfix user I read tons of posts on SPS. SPS has nothing to do with spam itself, its function is to avoid sender impersonification and it is only supposed to stop spam. Well I think that SPS wont stop spam, furthermore, adopting such systems will definitely fuck up the internet email infrastructure, which is BY DESIGN FREE (traditional postal service are and were not). Bill Gates just wants more money, that'' s it. Here in Italy spam via traditional Fax is a bigger plague than email spam and we pay big bucks for telephone... Do you think that paying for email will stop spam? Since we have built up our gateway anti-spam solution with spamassassin and DSPAM we have reduced spam to less then 0,5%, percentage that we consider physiological. If every one of us adopted antispam measures we would not have spam anymore, without destroying the infrastructure. andrea