On CNET: Sync Outlook with Google Calendar
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Robert Lemos, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News: Sep 3, 2004 12:55:00 AM

The Apache Foundation, an open-source development group, on Thursday pulled its support of the proposed antispam standard Sender ID, saying Microsoft's license requirements are too strict.

The move by the group responsible for the popular Apache Web server comes as other open-source developers also voiced reservations about Microsoft's attempts to apply stringent license requirements to its contribution to the spam-fighting technology.

"We believe that the current license is generally incompatible with open source, contrary to the practice of open Internet standards, and specifically incompatible with Apache License 2.0," the group wrote Thursday in its letter to the technical committee working on the technology.

The criticism of the licensing requirements for the Sender ID standard were published in response to a request for opinions of the possible standards.

The request came from the chairpersons of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working group responsible for Sender ID, which is meant to block spam by confirming the source of an e-mail. Dozens of others also contributed their comments, the overwhelming majority of which were critical of the new standard and Microsoft's attempt to place license requirements on the specification.

"Microsoft's license for patent claims made on Sender ID prevent (the specification) from being a standard in the open-source community," one member of the working group wrote in a posting titled "Motion to abandon Sender ID."

A Microsoft representative was not immediately available to comment on the issue.

Many of the license provisions worry open-source developers. According to an analysis done by Larry Rosen, general counsel of the Open Source Initiative, Microsoft's License would require mail service providers incorporating Sender ID into their products to tell Microsoft about customers using it.

The software giant also has not informed the IETF of potential patents pending on the technologies, and the license is not compatible with open-source development groups and requires users to be subject to U.S. export control laws, the analysis stated.

Sender ID is a combination of two proposed standards that would create a system to positively identify whether the source address of an e-mail message is the actual source of the message. One specification, Caller ID for E-mail, was proposed by Microsoft; the other, Sender Policy Framework (SPF), was proposed by Meng Wong, the founder of e-mail service provider Pobox.com.

The use of Microsoft's technology in the standard means that the company can specify a license that potential users have to agree to before using the code.

On Monday, Sendmail, developer of an open-source mail server, released a version of a module that could be added to any Sendmail server for Sender ID functionality in software.

While the module, called milter, is open-source, users may still have to agree to Microsoft's licensing restrictions. However, Sendmail's CEO, David Anderson, said his company was not going to sign the license agreement. Moreover, the company's lawyers do not think that anyone needs to.

"Microsoft has said that this is free, and it doesn't say that you need a license for this technology," he said. "I can't figure out why I would want to sign this license."

Microsoft has actively lobbied other companies to accept the Sender ID framework and its license that would accompany the code. In August, the company collected more than 80 members of the Email Service Provider Coalition to tout the benefits of the antispam technology.

"This is a good tool," J. Trevor Hughes, executive director of the ESPC, stated in an e-mail to the IETF working group. "The actions of the various parties involved are understandable and reasonable. The license terms are workable and within the scope of IETF standards and history. And it will have a positive effect on our ability to reduce phishing and protect legitimate e-mail."

Internet services firm VeriSign also signaled its support for the Sender ID specification in an e-mail to the IETF.

"We see Sender ID as a good, easy-to-implement solution to stop e-mail domain spoofing and an important first step towards truly authenticating the sending party," Bruce Ong, senior product manager for the company, wrote in the e-mail.

VeriSign can sympathize with Microsoft's situation: The firm has also been accused of and sued for trying to co-opt parts of the Internet infrastructure with its Site Finder service, which redirected Web surfers to a VeriSign-branded search page if they mistyped a .com or .net Web address.

Despite these votes of support, open-source groups may be a harder nut to crack.

"As developers of open-source e-mail technologies, we are concerned that no company should be permitted IP (intellectual property) rights over core Internet infrastructure," the Apache Foundation wrote, adding that "we will not be implementing support for Sender ID until such time, as the issues with the license are fixed and acceptable."

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 66 Talkback(s)
The author of that article misunderstands Sender ID
Finally found the article. You have to navigate to it manually.

Sorry, the purpose of Sender ID is *NOT* to tag emails as spam or not spam!!!

The purpose of Sender ID is to make identifi... (Read the rest)
Posted by: CobraA1 Posted on: 09/07/04 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
So just use SPF Nigel Johnstone   | 09/02/04
SPF and DomainKeys CobraA1   | 09/02/04
Sendmail can kill Sender ID el1jones   | 09/02/04
Attempt at "Executive summary" Nigel Johnstone   | 09/02/04
LOL nomorems   | 09/03/04
Strategy GregSalts   | 09/03/04
Re: Strategy none none   | 09/03/04
umm, we're talking servers, not desktops CobraA1   | 09/03/04
It matters little if at all. MS users don't care about open source. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 09/02/04
95% of the users don't run mail servers Yagotta B. Kidding   | 09/02/04
I know you can say Microsoft EXCHANGE. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 09/02/04
NO WAY IN HECK!!! Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
re: I know... Iain_Peters   | 09/02/04
Sorry No_Ax, this time you have it totally wrong... Confused by religion   | 09/02/04
Re: I know you can say Microsoft EXCHANGE. none none   | 09/02/04
Please give an example Yagotta B. Kidding   | 09/03/04
95% middle of nowhere   | 09/02/04
you forget a big thing Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
dang it, got beat to the submit button:) Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
Remember Bitty, Open Source rules the internet. Xunil_Sierutuf   | 09/02/04
Keep watching.... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 09/02/04
keep watching what?(NT) Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
Keep watching Windows grow three times faster than Open Source... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 09/02/04
It wont grow... Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
Hmmm... bchesmer   | 09/02/04
I said heck for fear of being deleted... Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
When it happens, we'll watch Yagotta B. Kidding   | 09/03/04
Total BS FreeBSD   | 09/03/04
It's possible AmusedAtItAll   | 09/03/04
Re: Keep watching Windows grow three times faster than Open Source... none none   | 09/03/04
We've been watching AmusedAtItAll   | 09/03/04
That's OK, Kid Yagotta B. Kidding   | 09/02/04
Comon Ax, R U Trolling or what??? bchesmer   | 09/02/04
i'm beginning to wonder myself... Monkey_MCSE   | 09/02/04
I think he got tired. doe_z   | 09/02/04
Re: It matters little if at all. MS users don't care about open source. none none   | 09/02/04
Ummm... 20075880200550981536805084989909-zdavis   | 09/03/04
what benefit? lotta_anger   | 09/03/04
Troll Factor a perfect 10.0! sa_z   | 09/03/04
Not true John L. Ries   | 09/04/04
From the story-- Bill4   | 09/02/04
Microsoft Trying to Make $$$ From Spam brenthawkinsmd   | 09/02/04
Can't they do the decent thing JUST ONCE? Jomo_z   | 09/02/04
NO..... they can't. Nor do they want to. shawkins   | 09/03/04
they they better get off their "rears" ryusen   | 09/02/04
I bet Bill Gates must be thinking chiwawa   | 09/02/04
the choice is simple then, free or ms V Sanders   | 09/02/04
Our Thanks to Apache . . . for Standing up to the Bully in Redmond (NT) Bit's_Conscience   | 09/02/04
What ParadigmOdyssey   | 09/02/04
Dude ~ nomorems   | 09/03/04
I usually skip PO's messages Confused by religion   | 09/03/04
Hold MICROSUCKS accountable for ALL Security Breaches !!! realitycheck101   | 09/02/04
You know, John E Wahd   | 09/03/04
So basically... Brasonte   | 09/03/04
"A Microsoft representative was not immediately available to comment " whisperycat   | 09/03/04
So much for cooperation. Tim Patterson   | 09/03/04
Me thinks MS is being arrogant skeptic tank   | 09/03/04
Sender ID yes, Msoft no TomMariner   | 09/03/04
Spammers adopting Sender ID faster than businesses... boomslang_z   | 09/03/04
Re: Spammers adopting Sender ID ... alterego_z   | 09/03/04
We hope so =) CobraA1   | 09/03/04
Fix working just fine paman57@...   | 09/03/04
The author of that article misunderstands Sender ID CobraA1   | 09/07/04
"Good Tool"...... NOT shawkins   | 09/03/04
Sure it is UncleBubba   | 09/03/04
MS have their work cut out for them John L. Ries   | 09/04/04

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement