First blush, Microsoft’s claims sound good: “Caller ID for e-mail would verify that each e-mail message originates from the Internet domain it claims to come from. Eliminating domain spoofing will help legitimate senders protect their domain names and reputations, and help recipients more effectively identify and filter junk e-mail.”

That’s till you consider the loyal opposition. Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail decries Microsoft’s licensing scheme, ownership, trademarks and overall legitimacy. But the site’s underlying focus seems to be a pitch for a competing open source project, SPF:

  • Caller ID for E-Mail has fewer adherents than SPF;
  • Caller ID for E-Mail doesn’t handle forwarding as well as SPF;
  • Caller ID for E-Mail headers are 5 times bigger than SPF;

  • Caller ID for E-Mail is not an RFC, while SPF may become one.

Efforts to verify the site’s whois data were fruitless; thus, we can’t help you untangle possible conflicts-of-interest; however, FailSafe Designs is fighting mad. Owner F. Scott Deaver claims Microsoft is “plagiarizing our Caller ID for E-mail product name and ideas”. Site logo: Ideas so good that Bill Gates steals ‘em!tm

grack.com adds: “Unfortunately, with their track record, I’m not certain that I can trust them with holding all the cards. If the patents really are defensive, why don’t they assign the patents over to the IETF and remove that silly patent attribution clause that prevents interoperability with some open-source licenses?”

War on Spam notes Sendmail’s participation, but at least one reader is cautious: “I’m not sure which technology we’ll be picking in the long run.”

Most admins are similarly confused. With other methods like DomainKeys in the hunt, a wait-and-see strategy may help avoid spinning your wheels needlessly.

More: 04/28/04