An ongoing effort to consolidate antispam authentication schemes took a big step forward with the merging of Sender Policy Framework and Microsoft’s Caller ID for E-mail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Microsoft said on Tuesday that it had agreed to combine its Caller ID efforts with the SPF, a specification crafted by Pobox.com Chief Technology Officer Meng Wong.<\/p>\n
A recent crop focuses on the idea that ISPs could publish the range of Internet Protocol addresses associated with their e-mail domains. If there’s no match, the recipient’s ISP can safely assume that the message is spam–or at least fraudulently addressed. The combined SPF and Caller ID, which has yet to be named, will use XML (Extensible Markup Language) to let Net service providers post IP addresses in the Domain Name System, the giant database that translates alphanumeric domain names like “news.com” into numerical IP addresses for Web servers.<\/p>\n
“The convergence of the two proposals is a very positive milestone in the war on spam and brings together the best of both SPF and Caller ID,” said Microsoft spokesman Sean Sundwall. AOL, which in December began testing SPF, hailed Microsoft’s collaboration with Wong. “We welcome Microsoft to the position we have long held concerning the attributes of SPF,” AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham said. “And on the need for a joint standard that is about more than one technical standard, one technology or one company. We were the first ISP to agree to test and implement SPF, back in December, and we think this convergence is the right approach at the right time.”<\/p>\n
Other systems for authenticating mail are also in progress. Sendmail and Yahoo have gotten behind DomainKeys, which authenticates e-mail through digital signatures and is not mutually exclusive with DNS-based systems.<\/p>\n
More info: http:\/\/zdnet.com.com\/2100-1104_2-5220253.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=535"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/535\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3022,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/535\/revisions\/3022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}