Microsoft 'battles' spam [ not ] -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

Microsoft 'battles' spam [ not ] -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

Post by Daero » Fri, 23 May 2003 00:44:06



http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/groupware/story/0,10...

While trumpeting Microsoft's investment in antispam technology for its
MSN Online and Exchange and Outlook application customers, Gates
downplayed the idea of a technological fix to the spam problem. "There
is no silver-bullet solution to the problem," he wrote.

Instead, Gates advocated a multifaceted approach involving new
legislation, increased enforcement of existing laws and a healthy dose
of technology industry self-regulation.

The centerpiece of Gates' antispam plan is a proposal to establish
global independent trust authorities that would CERTIFY LEGITIMATE
E-MAIL SOLICITATIONS, champion best practices and serve as a mediating
body for customer disputes. LEGITIMATE E-MAIL SOLICITATION COMPANIES
would receive a "seal" identifying them as TRUSTED SENDERS."

Rather than creating a complicated new body of laws regarding spam,
FEDERAL LEGISLATION SHOULD INDEMNIFY INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM
BLOCKING SPAM AND PURSUING SPAMMERS, while providing INCENTIVES FOR
E-MAIL MARKETERS TO ADOPT BEST PRACTICES, Gates wrote.

For example, the federal government could set up a "SAFE HARBOR" program
that would ABSOLVE ONLINE MARKETERS that participate in SELF-REGULATORY
ORGANIZATIONS from COMPLYING WITH MORE ONEROUS ANTISPAM LAWS, such as
labeling spam e-mail messages with "ADV," Gates suggested.
....... unquote .......

* capitols my emphasis

'legitimate e-mail solicitations'. I don't think so. If I don't want
spam then I don't want spam. Who is going to do this legitimizing,
obviously not me ?

'seal .. trusted senders ..' Trusted by whom ? who is going to award
this trusted *seal*? Trusted to do what, SPAM my *inbox* !

'self-regulatory organizations' I see :) These spam merchants are going
to award themselves a seal of approval to spam my *inbox*. But wait I
can always threaten to sue my ISP for passing on the spam. Or can I ?
Not if they take gates advice and 'indemnify internet service providers
from blocking spam and pursuing spammers'.

Unsolicited advertising sent as email is just that *advertising*. In
other words *spam* I for one do not want it. The simplest solution IS to
lable it ADVertising. What motivation would anyone have to object to this ?

get this, gates considers it onerous to require the smammers to put an
"ADV" token in the header.

This is working to protect the consumer from spam ? I don't think so.
While Microsoft champions itself as defending its customers from spam
elsewhere ,gates is quietly working on capitol hill to do the exact
opposite.

---

See also:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134640869_we...

Microsoft pushes for weakening of anti-spam law
Paul Queary  --  The Associated Press

OLYMPIA Anti-spam activists and a state attorney have argued against
a proposal pushed by Microsoft that would weaken Washingtons tough
law against unwanted e- mail.

The Microsoft bill would cut the minimum award to $10, and cap damages
at $25,000 per day.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, is being
brought forward in many states, said Scott Hazlegrove, a Microsoft
lobbyist. Its aimed at balancing the interests of consumers who dont
want to be spammed with businesses desire to tap the Internet as an
advertising medium, Hazlegrove said.

Neither Hazlegrove nor Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake would comment
further on the companys motives for proposing the bill.
....... unquote .......

 
 
 

Microsoft 'battles' spam [ not ] -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

Post by flatfish++ » Fri, 23 May 2003 01:45:57


NOTHING.

 
 
 

1. Microsoft doesn't believe in Sun's J2EE, computerWORLD.com.au

http://snurl.com/1k5x
Interview: .Net: The complete package
Tom Yager and Tom Sullivan,  June 11 2003

Microsoft's approach integrates a full set of enterprise services into
the Windows Server 2003 operating system. The company's product manager
for the .Net developer platform, Dino Chiesa, doesn't believe Sun
Microsystems Inc.'s new tools-centered strategy will bring J2EE up to
par with Microsoft's fully integrated approach. He spoke with
InfoWorld's Tom Yager and Tom Sullivan.

Q: How is the combination of .Net and Windows Server 2003 more powerful
than the combination of J2EE and Solaris?

You have to align the right stuff next to each other. J2EE is a set of
specs, not a product ...

Q: Microsoft often brings up the subject of J2EE's complexity.
Certainly, if I stack up all of the manuals for .Net and the Windows
API, I have a stack at least as large as the reference materials for
J2EE. Are most of the productivity improvements derived from the use of
Visual Studio .Net?

Tools are definitely a contributor. Our competitors have tried to build
tools that are as productive as Visual Studio. When you want to build a
secure Web application, it takes one line of code because it's
attribute-based programming. That pulls in Kerberos and Active
Directory. If you try to do the same thing with Sun's app server, you'll
find there's a lot more code required just to build a secure site ...

Q: Some of J2EE's complexity is hidden by development tools from
companies like IBM, Oracle and Borland. None of these measures up to
Visual Studio .Net, but then Microsoft has massive resources devoted
just to tools. Could the J2EE programming experience be improved
significantly by the introduction of better tools?

I think that's not possible. Better tools do not solve the problems that
many adopters of J2EE have encountered. It stems from the lack of
integration of the layers. They're separate from the operating systems.
There are issues that come up in all stages of the software lifecycle.
For example, it's impossible to reconcile all of the logs from the OS
and the various J2EE pieces. At deployment time, J2EE rollouts take much
longer just because there are so many knobs you have to tweak, and the
application server is not integrated with the operating system, and
those pieces are not integrated with the databases. All of the pieces
are not designed to get along together. We have our Windows Server team
working with our database team and our .Net team. We iron those issues
out before the customers have to deal with them. None of those knobs
needs to be exposed to an operator or administrator. No matter how far
you take things with J2EE development tools, that larger lack of
integration problem is not addressed.
-------
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?secid=345&id=1012085332
---

more of the same 'our stuff works better with our stuff' bs if you ask me.

2. Is there a software that can send email to multiple receviers?

3. buy us out says SCO's CEO to IBM COMPUTERWORLD.com

4. ppp 2.3.10, problem with nak, help please

5. SCO's NDA offer a PR stunt COMPUTERWORLD.com

6. Again the calculator

7. Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

8. X Screen position

9. questionable motives of Microsoft SCO deal -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

10. Microsoft to certify security professionals computerWORLD.com

11. flaws in Microsoft remedy -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

12. Computerworld -> 'Microsoft backpedals on NT 5.0'

13. Microsoft's connection to SCO anti-Linux campaign -- NEWS.COM.com