how-to block ads
|
GameCube Boy
join:2003-12-12
10321
| Re: It will take a company of yahoo's size.... said by desdog:
to make this work correctly. Small companies dont have the push to intigrate an authintication system, yahoo has the best chance so far.
I think the push should and will be from every legitimate business. It's not just where the email originates but who receives it. Say a mom and pop shop is a host, why wouldn't they want authentication from other ISP's in order to ensure that the emails their small customer base is receiving are authenticated. | |
|  
desdog
@cox.net
|  Re: It will take a company of yahoo's size....
If I were trying to push a new technology I though should be a standard it wouldn't go anywhere. | |
| | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by GameCube Boy  :
said by desdog:
to make this work correctly. Small companies dont have the push to intigrate an authintication system, yahoo has the best chance so far.
I think the push should and will be from every legitimate business. It's not just where the email originates but who receives it. Say a mom and pop shop is a host, why wouldn't they want authentication from other ISP's in order to ensure that the emails their small customer base is receiving are authenticated.
Such a system would probably have to rely on third-party signed keys to work (otherwise, how do you know you can trust the "authenticated" emails?). Have you ever priced third-party signed keys for servers? They ain't cheap, for the most part (and you can expect that the ones that are will somehow end up not being sufficient to participate). They especially aren't cheap when you have to buy one per entity (this could be a zone, or hopefully just per zone server). This certainly sets up a couple groups to make a bucket-load of new money: the third-party trusted signers (e.g., Verisign) and companies that would provide such trusted DNS zones (because a significant number of current DNS zone owners are not going to be able to afford to run their own after implementation of this). The third-party signers will get their new money from all the new keys they'd be selling. The DNS services would get their money from: A) hosting the DNS zones of people who can't afford their own keys; and B) fees associated with any and all updates.
So, now you're small entity and you've become tired of your ISP (because of price, service, etc.). You want to move to a new ISP. You have to contact your DNS provider (assuming it wasn't your old ISP) and send a list of updates. "Sure thing, that will be $X per A/CNAME/PTR" change. Whereas, right now, if the small entity is half-clued, they can run their own DNS servers. When they go to change ISPs, they just send a registry update for their DNS servers to the InterNIC database. Blammo: one IP or a million IPs, the externalized administrative workload and expenses are the same: essentially zero.
Personally, before I'd get on board with Yahoo's scheme, I'd be checking to see what their investments in current PKI and DNS infrastructures are. They could be looking to make a LOT of money with this "open" standard.
Remember, when companies start talking about "on-ramps" they are usually envisioning themselves sitting as toll-collector, somewhere on one of them.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" | |
| | | |
|
·
·