This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sender ID article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Jeff Albro
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)
An article about Microsoft's latest move regarding Sender ID appeared on Slashdot this morning:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/23/1354232&tid=109&tid=111&tid=1
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.
'''Practical Problem'''
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.
Bill Zanetti
Why the neutrality tag? There doesn't seem to be a mention on the talk page.65.127.129.246 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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..
Tweeks
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)
I removed that from the article based on three months time and no comments. If anyone disagrees, state your case. :) 71.43.221.137 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is the first list in monospace? It looks strange and pointless. Nfirvine (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)