Antispam framework scores Microsoft endorsement

TalkBack 2 of 5:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Yeah But Look Who Participates In Published Domain Adresses

Knew there must have been something fishy about this. Just couldn't put the idea into hindsight though. Right now - no publishing venue wich does emails 'spam or not. Gets a list of 'known email IP addresses. Microsoft for certain isn't any sebastian of member where culmination is in use of course. Then for the most part if there IS an 'IP"" most users of email are not aware of them being the focus of their own email address,other than perhaps configuring their software email application.

Of course when you 'authenticate - there is going to be a 'record of who sends 'when - if not what,and 'how many times they are,or have done so.The idea of spam or not spam,wich mootly is the descrection of the receiver - becomes the mating call of this 'record along with the contributions in the party of ISPs listing the IPS with 'members. And Microsoft,as any participation merely consists to something of another 'software program wich 'adheres to the functioning of its own mention.

That said,the CAN-Spam act did something wich is inevitibly along the same foolishness. When we where dealing out what to do with 'spam,nothing their had been consistent to record,monitor,or detail of IP addresses. With a persons descretion of 'spam,and the simplification of 'application a consistent 'return-to-sender,along with the applications controls to do so,would have returned the email without user involvement,or anygiven relationship necesary for the 'courtesy. The CAN-SPAM act would have regarded this as 'proper notice in law,so that the 'spam might have conducively taken the receiver from a list wich had same information known at the time of its sending to the receiver.

However,when congress did what it did,it did not recognize,howbeit it was not trying to .. tie into be software developer,or application 'accomadation. But it did. When the 'link necesary to 'opt-out was said to be the function of accesory to ''make law,lawful - it was saying that the 'browser was the arbitrator for 'emails,and they are certainly not. The inhibition to provide non association to a solicited email is simply disregarded.

Because utilizing such a link,gives a spam attendant - machine information,over an above what is known of the simply email address. The browser,time zone,perhaps applications that are running on board,along with browser version - wich perhaps also notes the ISP the computer is using at the time.

So congress inevitibly 'programmed 'unsolicited comercial email by giving the subject of these informations to the 'person of the unsolicited email,when WE WE WERE SPEAKING OF AN EMAIL ADDRESS OF A RECIPIENT!!!.

I suspect that the scenario that Microsoft is doling out here,has the same perspective in mind.Along with the record it creates through the relationship of a given thing - another functionality is maintained because of the nature of the mechanism it is utilizing.

This is all well and fine. As long as Microsoft,Yahoo,AOL,and the like creates the jobs for the members in wich the functionality contained. Yet still the situation is that the 'machine is as well the 'person just as much as the 'person is that of the 'email adress as 'named. The identity of the machine,is as much important as,and in the event of 'autoconnective association just as important as the 'identity of the person at it.

Then in retrospect when you create the programs that control this identity while actually constructing architecture wich devalues its 'person basically by setting it as a 'subordinate - that of something most client machines cannot control in IP, you are simply being an opportunist at the relationship of unintended consiquence.

Since that is something wich is already spelled out,within the comprehension of the catalyst involved - namely making yourself a member of those individuals wich by and large are 'identities to themselves,alone.

How does this make sense then.Congress supposedly passes a spam law dealing with email addresses wich the spam sender controls via a mechanism that has nothing to do with email.

Microsoft creates and archetecture dealing with email address wich the spam sender controls via a mechanism that has nothing to do with email.

Whats going on here.? Guess the only way to actually 'get your say - is to have a server with all the comforts of home.Wherever that may,or may not be . For a present tense.

-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 05/25/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Can your business work smarter? IBM Today, productivity is at a premium and IT budgets are at a minimum. Work ... Download Now
• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now