Subject: RE: Sender identification is not the answer

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:20:17 -0700

> Mr. Wong,
> 
> Sender-ID is horrible and it will alter the landscape since 
> Microsoft is the
> author and hence, promotor.   I'm so disturbed by all this,  
> I will begin to
> inform the FCC, the Media and all that have the power to get this stop
> before it gets started.  

Could people please mark their messages to indicate whether the
contents are meant seriously or as a form of self-parody. I am
unable to work out which category the above fits in to.

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:45:27 -0400

This is not a joke. I am dead serious about this.  I changed the subject
line.

What is quickly becoming a parody is how designs are being discussed;  that
A) are not going to work very well in the first place, b) increase DNS
overhead,  c) increase and promote the network transport payload and d)
violiates and conflicts with US ECPA provisions and yet doesn't even address
the two fundamental mandates of CANSPAM - true sender authentication and
topic identification.

What is disturbing about it is why I have to remind people about this.  Go
figure.  It took my wife today to say while I was fighting the urge to click
the send button:  "You got more mail design experience than most in that
group you wasting alot of time on. It is time to speak up if you feel
Microsoft's proposal is going to change things in negative ways.  Press the
send button Hector."
<Click>

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com

---

From: Hadmut Danisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:14:41 +0200

Hector,

>the two fundamental mandates of CANSPAM - true sender authentication and

I, as a non-american, find your postings rather difficult to understand.
I learned that you seem to blame someone for violating any laws,
but I can't see what exactly is your point. Could you be
a little bit more verbose and elaborate your statement to give
others - or at least me - a chance to understand what you are
talking about. I'm not familiar with US ECPA, I don't even know what this
is. It would be helpful if you told me what section of that law (I guess 
it is
a law) you are referring to and why.

If you are talking about what I guess you are talking about, you might
be correct. After all, there is a law in germany too, which prohibits what
I believe you were trying to say. Please accept that it is much more 
difficult
for me as a foreigner to follow such statements about US law.

Maybe you could provide a link to the text of the law, give a precise
citation of the paragraph or section, and explain, how in detail it is
violated. I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I didn't 
get it.
Sorry.

I would also be interested in your claims a,b, and c, escpecially if you
could explain them.

regards
Hadmut