|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sender ID article.|
What does "legtimate" mean
What does this sentance mean:
"In practice, the pra scheme usually only offers protection when the email is legitimate, while offering no real protection in the case of spam or phishing"
It makes no sense - although I vaguely get an idea of what it might be trying to say. If someone can explain what this is actually trying to say perhaps we can reword it to make sense to the likely reader of this page.
Just a note to describe why I changed the page...
Patents are a restriction on PRACTICE, not on discussion. That's the way they work . They MUST describe the invention enough to implement it or the patent applicant would risk having thier patent overturned. Patents are also not restricted by copyright. You can go and download the patent and wallpaper your home with it if you want.
See David Pressmans' patent books (NOLO Press) for more details.
Before going on an editing the page, I'd like to have a little discussion. SenderID is *not* an anti-spam technology as the page states. It's an anti JoeJob measure. But it won't stop spam, not a bit.
--MarceloMagallon 16:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree that it won't stop spam at all. But, I agree that it isn't an anti-spam technology. The memo calls 4406 anti-spoofing, and I think spoofing is more widely understood than "JoeJob." Also, there is a Email Spoofing Wiki article. That's why I changed it to anti-spoofing. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An article about Microsoft's latest move regarding Sender ID appeared on Slashdot this morning:
I would add something about it, but I lack the markup knowledge and probably wouldn't phrase things right. Anyone who wants to do so, feel free. Drop me a line on my Talk page if you like, I need friends :-) --BigglesZX 16:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Besides the patent concerns, there's other issues with a verification system. For example, someone sending work e-mail from home (or vice versa) will likely be seen as spoofing e-mail. This could mean that legitimate mail is filtered, or that companies will need to provide a way to relay. They may need to start setting up ASMTP gateways that allow relaying and not using ISPs that block SMTP ports. This can be very frustrating for inexperienced users and their support staff.
- Check out Sender Policy Framework, it's slightly less restrictive. you can use any of your addresses everywhere, only the "Return-Path" for bounces is bound to the sending network. In other words if you send via AOL and something doesn't work you get the error message to your AOL mailbox - what you do then with it is your business, forward it to your favourite mailbox is an option. If you send via MSN error reports go to your MSN mailbox, etc., but your normal From/Reply-To/Sender header fields in the mail header can be as you want them. With SenderID that won't work, they tried to solve too many mail problems in one giant step. -- Omniplex 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a lay viewpoint based on recent experience. I use an ISP that has provided me with a domain name. Recently I have sent emails to two friends to have them timeout. I then am able to send them via hotmail (inadvertently advertising hotmail aaaggh). At hotmail I noted a comment concerning Sender ID that I had not heard about. I contacted my ISP who said the problem was at the other end. I contacted my friends but I suspect that they will not contact their own ISPs and it is possible that they will miss mail from elsewhere.
Neither friends are at home. The firend whose email address includes .com.au is in Nigeria, and the other with email address .com.br is in the UK using internet cafes.
Maybe I am completely in the wrong arena but is it possible that a so-called industry standard is being applied only in certain areas.
- I think you'll find your question is generally considered sort of "tech support" and won't get much response here. But, "industry standard" in this context does not mean widely adopted, it means a standard has been written by the proposing body, and accepted by that body. I think industry acceptance/implementation of SPF and Sender ID is still pretty low. Still, your problem is probably not related to SPF and being in an internet cafe. Most people that say people will have trouble sending mail from home or an internet cafe don't understand the standard or don't understand how mail works. You probably log in to your mail server, and thus use its ip address to send mail, not the internet cafe's. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a big step back... Not even one mention of DNS! You need context!
For the uninitiated this article is almost worthless as it does not relate SPF/SID as a DNS based tool! In short, there is no theory on how it actually works! You would think that would at least mention DNS in the "Principles of Operation" section. But no.
Someone may want to purpose a rewite or at least include mention of it being a DNS based technology and maybe include inline link to how it really works. Something..
- I added a sentence in the Principles of Operation section to make it clearer that you need to understand SPF first. There isn't much point in explaining everything twice. Wrs1864 06:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was accepted as an Experimental RFC by the Internet Engineering Task Force, as is, on December 8th, 2005 based on wide industry support and adoption.
Ok...by who? --CCFreak2K 03:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- paypal uses it: paypal.nl text = "spf2.0/pra mx include:s._sid.ebay.com ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed that from the article based on three months time and no comments. If anyone disagrees, state your case. :) 18.104.22.168 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Minor formatting issue
- Dunno, I fixed it. While I was at it I moved the patent issue from the lead section to a separate section adding a fact tag: Did they ever get the patent? Even if they got it Sender ID is now covered by their new "do what you like" policy (the fine print is for lawyers, IANAL ;-) Somebody disputed the neutrality of the disadvantages section with a tag in 2007. I'm pretty sure that this section is correct, therefore I'll remove the tag and the Weasel-word "unfortunately", nobody cares how fortunate or unfortunate those disadvantages are, as long as they are correct. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)