Loser : Microsoft

Still, though Microsofts goals are good, its implementation needs work. This was Philip E. Rosss main point in his article Loser Microsoft to Spammers Go Phish.In the article, Ross discussed the two spam e-mail countermeasures developed separately by Microsoft and the partnership of Cisco and Yahoo. Although he admitted that the systems developed Sender ID by Microsoft and Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) by Cisco/Yahoo had their own advantages, he also confesses to believing that DKIM is the better anti-spam proposal. He goes as far as writing, For our purposes, that sack ups 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 curb fix from by comparability the contents Internet Protocol address from the IP address of its claimed origin while DKIM tacks an encrypted digital feeling to the e-mails header and this signature contains instructions on where to find the algorithm Ross reveals the one great loophole to Microsofts Sender ID. It is not able to differentiate 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. But 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 easily confused by e-mail changes while in transit, he still has another negative comment on Microsoft. He mentions critics speculations that Microsoft may have other things in mind with the control of spam e-mails speculations that may have stemmed from the companys tight grip on Sender IDs intellectual property.Yet even with this presentation of arguments against Microsofts Sender ID, Ross still believes that the Redmond, Washington computer giant is serious roug h eliminating spam and that they have what it takes to come up with the standard in spam countermeasures. For now 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 two sides to Microsofts Sender ID, Ross still had the tendency to settle more on the negative side of the system. This was especially apparent when he brandished Microsoft as the loser, when a less negative term could have sufficed.Rosss points, though a little biased, were admittedly 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 being exploited will turn out to be not true because true to Ross words, nobody wants to be strong-armed.However, even I have to agree 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 fight against spamming is not about one companys supremacy over another but about making e-mail more reliable for all users, Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft must stress 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. denotationRoss, Philip E. (2007). Loser Microsoft to Spammers Go Phish. In Spectrum Online. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http//www.spectrum.iee