 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | M$ just offering something to keep Regulators happy -Nuff said. | |
|  | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | I wonder.... What will happen if you wrongly get placed on this black list, will you have a easy way of getting reinstated or is it going to be a nightmare.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: M$ just offering something to keep Regulators happy said by rachelsfx  :-Nuff said. More likely to try and get legit companies marketing pitches past the spam filters that are blocking their emails. Sometimes, pitches from companies like Ford or Toyota are thrown into the SPAM folder in gmail. I'll bet this is MS's way of trying to get major ISP's onboard so those emails can go thru.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
2 edits | What's the point? Why add another layer of "authentication" simply because it's tied to a corporate name? What happened to SPF records?
SPF is open, free and barely used (correctly by servers and host records). MS pushing this type of authentication will only further annoy DNS admins by making sure it's "done right" fall on the shoulders of SBS 2003 owners...the core people that still send mail out as "some-company.local"
Spam is a less a problem of preventing it, and more a problem of people thinking they configured their end correctly.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
| | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: What's the point? said by DaSneaky1D :Why add another layer of "authentication" simply because it's tied to a corporate name? What happened to SPF records? SPF is open, free and barely used (correctly by servers and host records). MS pushing this type of authentication will only further annoy DNS admins by making sure it's "done right" fall on the shoulders of SBS 2003 owners...the core people that still send mail out as "some-company.local" Spam is a less a problem of preventing it, and more a problem of people thinking they configured their end correctly. SPF has the old "chicken or the egg" problem I think.
We use it on all our domains and only Google actually checks the SPF record. Out of thousands of emails being sent across the country from our mail servers, I only see SPF queries from Google on sent emails (gmail). Sad.
It almost makes it completely worthless.
I hope because this has the Microsoft name behind it, more people will take notice and/or MS will create an easy way to integrate it with Exchange. | |
| | |
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: What's the point? I see your point. I rarely have custs that ask to have a SPF record added to their domain, but those that do often have more problems than it's worth.
Of note, I had one cust that, due to his record, stopped receiving bounced emails because the receiving server simply dropped it.
Sure, maybe with integration with Exchange the spam problem may decrease, but I'm awfully doubtful. So many other areas that need to be secured, this is almost like pushing the processing load off to something else.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Nanoprobe
Crunching in subspace
Premium
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula
clubs:  | Re: No system will be embraced by all.... Where in my post did I say it would fix the problem? What I said was it is a relatively cheap alternative to curbing spam being delivered to you until something better comes along.
--
Resistance is Futile | |
| | | | |
|
|
Microsoft Opens Up SenderID
·
·