Loser : Microsoft

Still, though Microsofts goals are dependable, its effectuation needs formulate. This was Philip E. Rosss main point in his article loser Microsoft to Spammers Go Phish.In the article, Ross discussed the two junk e-mail email countermeasures developed severally by Microsoft and the partnership of Cisco and chawbacon. Although he admitted that the systems developed vector ID by Microsoft and Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) by Cisco/Yahoo had their protest advantages, he also confesses to believing that DKIM is the amend anti-spam proposal. He goes as faraway as writing, For our purposes, that makes Microsoft Corp. the loser.After discussing the difference between Microsofts and Cisco/Yahoos designs a sender ID verifies that an e-mail really came from where it claims to reach rally from by comparing the messages Internet Protocol promise from the IP sumress of its claimed origin while DKIM tacks an encrypted digital signature to the e-mails header and this signature contains instructions on where to find the algorithmic program Ross reveals the one great loophole to Microsofts Sender ID. It is not able to note between spam and forwarded e-mail. And Ross says this can make or break Microsofts anti-spam system. As Ross says, the only way to get around Sender IDs glitch is to cut and paste a message you plan to forward. notwithstanding this, Ross explains, makes sharing harder thus, possibly resulting to lesser people e-mailing.Although Ross presents Ciscos Jim Fentons claim that DKIM also has its own fault in that it is more comfortably confused by e-mail changes while in transit, he allay has another ban comment on Microsoft. He mentions critics speculations that Microsoft may contract other things in mind with the control of spam e-mails speculations that may have stemmed from the companys tight grip on Sender IDs smart property.Yet so far with this presentation of arguments against Microsofts Sender ID, Ross fluid believes that the Redmond, Washington computer giant is serious about eliminating spam and that they have what it takes to come up with the standard in spam countermeasures. For straight though, Microsofts intentions are not enough and they have yet to work towards polishing their processes.Philip Ross made a well-informed article with Loser Microsoft to Spammers Go Phish. He was able to provide evidences to all his claims and was able to back-up his assumptions. But even with a fair presentation of both sides to Microsofts Sender ID, Ross still had the tendency to settle more on the negative side of the system. This was in particular patent when he brandished Microsoft as the loser, when a less negative term could have sufficed.Rosss points, though a little biased, were confessedly insightful. His mention of Microsofts attempt at secreting their anti-spam technologys intellectual property does make one wonder why such a secrecy. I do hope that assumptions on the possibility of this technology universe exploited will turn out to be not confessedly because true to Ross words, nobody wants to be strong-armed.However, even I have to reserve with Rosss suggestion that perhaps Cisco and Yahoo can add Microsoft to their team and all three can work towards a stronger anti-spam system. Since the rouse against spamming is not about one companys supremacy everywhere another but about making e-mail more tried for all users, Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft must try to work together for the benefit of millions of e-mail users. And it was good that even Fenton and Microsofts Harry Katz concur that this is a good idea.Philip Ross may have his own biases regarding Microsofts Sender ID and it was slightly apparent in the article. But his proposal for making the current situation better is indeed something that current industry bigwigs should look at.ReferenceRoss, Philip E. (2007). Loser Microsoft to Spammers Go Phish. In Spectrum Online. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http//www.spe ctrum.iee