FTC Email Authentication Summit

gal1264 writes "The FTC is hosting an email authentication summit today and tomorrow in Washington, DC conveniently happening at the same time as the IETF meeting in the same town. Today mainily was comprised of an overview of the various outstanding proposals. It was interesting to see the whole crowd cheer as the Yahoo representative reiterated that their proposal was full open, much unlike the recent Sender-ID proposal which caused great furor in the IETF MARID working group as well as the open source community. It does seem however, that all of the participants were excited to be testing various techniques (personally I found the Bounce Address Tag Validation very compelling) and were communally comitted to converging on the most effective solutions without anything other than defensive patent structure."

lunchtime

[BortQ]

I hope they served SPAM for lunch.

Re:lunchtime

[BortQ]

I second that motion.

Too many possibilities?

[Rikus]

I see at least five proposed systems on that page, and I'm sure there are others in existence. It's usually good to have a variety of things to choose from, but it seems like it will be difficult to get any one system fully accepted when there are various different advantages and disadvantages associated with each, especially since some people have already decided on SPF, Domainkeys, or other options.
It's quite convenient that almost any mailserver speaks SMTP, but I wonder how long it will take before every mailserver uses the adopted sender authentication system.

Re:Too many possibilities?

[james_couzens]

I'm from the SPF project. There is a forwarding problem. SRS was developed. I wrote a library for it. SRS failed (ugly, but working solution, not very popular). So I got together with some friends and developed SES (http://ses.codeshare.ca) which operates fully independantly of SPF or any other technology, does NOT publish information in DNS (but can make use of an SPF modifier to facilitate such) and provides better protection than DK and IIM combined. We will be releasing an RFC Draft through the I

For the last time...

[wan-fu]

... the parts comprise the whole and the whole is composed of parts. There is never a reason to use "comprised of."

Meeting summary, Part 1:Wired-style.

[elvey]

I was there. My take: SenderID was a meme on the decline - several large entities and several small entities gave it the thumbs down; several large entities (all D.M.A. [pacbell.net] members, I think) gave it the thumbs up. Rikus: the place was abuzz with SPF discussion: it got several thumbs up and several thumbs down. CSV, SES, BATV were new and on the rise - no thumbs down. AOL committed to using CSV. (In the sense that they're 'using' SPF today) and got several other thumbs up. BATV got several thumbs up, SES go