Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:01, Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote: Justin Mason wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:00, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ It might be useful to compare with MTA MARK and see what the status of that proposal currently is: http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/ http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04.txt Amazing. Justin, you must have known about that one - you can't possibly have just googled it? I could vaguely recall it, then someone else reminded me of the exact name. There have been a lot of MARID proposals in the past... --j. -- --j.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
Justin Mason wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:00, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ It might be useful to compare with MTA MARK and see what the status of that proposal currently is: http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/ http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04.txt Amazing. Justin, you must have known about that one - you can't possibly have just googled it? /Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Per Jessen wrote: Justin Mason wrote: It might be useful to compare with MTA MARK and see what the status of that proposal currently is: http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/ Amazing. Justin, you must have known about that one - you can't possibly have just googled it? Well, I certainly had never heard of this one. And I think that with one minor variation in concept it could be useful to scoring systems like SA... Because of the threat of hacks, any system that 'favors' an MTA is simply giving spammers a target for exploitation. But an explicit 'disallow' record (MTA=0) created by the sysadmin would have a similar impact to deliberately naming PTR records as 'dynamic'. SA could 'detect' the explicit MTA=0 and add a score (or block outright at MTA level) The only thing I would *not* do, given the general laziness of the internet, is apply any default meaning to the absence of this TXT record. Only explicit identification of an IP or subnet as 'not permitted to send mail' would have significance to SA or a blocking MTA. H. Could work. No impact for non-implementation. Disables an unauthorized IP for any case where it is used. I like it... - C
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: method of whitelisting. You can't seriously expect to block on some attribute that not everyone can or bothers to change (DNS). None of this On 11.02.10 16:34, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: I am not suggesting that anyone block anything based on MTX at this time. you have been doing that, afaics. I suggest using it for whitelisting (small negative score, not absolute whitelisting) alone until it is more broadly in use. You suggested rejecting everything that fails MTX check (everything that does not have the D.C.B.A.mtx.domain record). Except for those who are willing to cause a small number of false positives, like me. Most of them have implemented SPF checking long ago. It's funny how, for just believing I may have come up with an idea that is new and useful for dealing with spam, I am consistently attacked. Because people often believe that, and they're almost always wrong. I can't blame you, purely statistically speaking, I'm probably wrong. And I assure you that fact has not slipped my mind. We are not attacking you, but your proposal. You are telling nice things about it but you have not explained how they would be impemented. Read my last mail in this thread where I've asked you how exactly you imagine the MTX not to break forwarding. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Fucking windows! Bring Bill Gates! (Southpark the movie)
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:00, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ It might be useful to compare with MTA MARK and see what the status of that proposal currently is: http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/ http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04.txt -- --j.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
- dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ -- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken http://www.ChaosReigns.com Like the simplicity and it does appear to be a great idea. Why do you believe SPF or DKIM generate breakage ? -- Thanks, Phil
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 02/11, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote: Like the simplicity and it does appear to be a great idea. Why do you believe SPF or DKIM generate breakage ? Thank you. SPF breakage occurs where a user has configured one of their email addresses to automatically forward their mail to another of their email addresses, and this is (commonly) handled without rewriting the envelope from. So it fails SPF checking because the forwarding server's IP does not match the envelope from domain's SPF record. Also, enough people seem to be offended by the solution to this problem of rewriting the envelope from that it is a significant barrier to adoption. At the moment I do not believe DKIM style solutions cause breakage. Honestly I have not looked into them enough. But as you said: Simplicity. At a brief glance, MTX does not have the problems listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Weaknesses (message replay, arbitrary forwarding, breakage by (mailing list) modification of email, CPU overhead) -- When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and life stands explained. - Mark Twain http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
Henrik K wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. Hmm, yeah - Draxus' proposal: publish a DNS record identifying an IP-address as one of your mail-servers. Henrik: name your mail-server such that is identifiable as a mailserver. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:45:32PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote: Henrik K wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. Hmm, yeah - Draxus' proposal: publish a DNS record identifying an IP-address as one of your mail-servers. Henrik: name your mail-server such that is identifiable as a mailserver. And yeah, I know: my method requires you to dedicate the possibly only PTR you have to some use (since multiple are discouraged and broken). But it's already a known good manner. The MTX proposal adds pretty much no value and has zero chance for widespread adoption.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. I did consider this, but I didn't think it was reasonable to expect people to change the host names of their transmitting mail servers. MTX has the advantage of only listing mail servers that transmit legitimately, not including servers that only receive, although it might be a distinction worth losing in exchange for increased adoption. I encourage you to get your method standardized. It might work better. In the mean time, I think mine has a better chance of adoption because there is no reason not to create the records. Perhaps I should consider .smtp. in a hostname a pass for MTX? I'd prefer not to use that particular string since it's associated with receiving servers more than transmitting. I'd be tempted to do .mtx., except I'm concerned about administrators unaware of it allowing spammers to have hostnames including it. Same for .smtp., actually. I like the separate MTX record because it's very explicit identification of a legitimate transmitting mail server. -- When in doubt, gas it. It may not solve the problem, But it ends the suspense. - Steve Moonitz, DoD #2319, 1994 http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. I did consider this, but I didn't think it was reasonable to expect people to change the host names of their transmitting mail servers. MTX has the advantage of only listing mail servers that transmit legitimately, not including servers that only receive, although it might be a distinction worth losing in exchange for increased adoption. And you do think it is reasonable to expect people to create an entirely new DNS subtree? Personally, I would rather change the server name. I encourage you to get your method standardized. It might work better. In the mean time, I think mine has a better chance of adoption because there is no reason not to create the records. Perhaps I should consider .smtp. in a hostname a pass for MTX? I'd prefer not to use that particular string since it's associated with receiving servers more than transmitting. I'd be tempted to do .mtx., except I'm concerned about administrators unaware of it allowing spammers to have hostnames including it. Same for .smtp., actually. I like the separate MTX record because it's very explicit identification of a legitimate transmitting mail server. mail and mta are also fairly common. And don't forget things like smtp01, smtp02, etc. -- Bowie
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page. You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine about the evils of microsoft all you want, but if you are going to post a link with the intent for the 'average' person to read it, then you better make it *accessible* to that average person. Otherwise, you are just being arrogant and rude, and deserve nothing more than a hearty F__K YOU and blacklisting for wasting everyone's time. Don't bother replying to this post, you are officialy dev/nulled (I would delight in bouncing your sorry opinions back to you, but they wouldn't go back to you, they would go back to the list). - C
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
Charles Gregory wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page. What page were you looking at? All I see at that URL is a fairly straightforward description of how to implement his MTX system. You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine about the evils of microsoft all you want, but if you are going to post a link with the intent for the 'average' person to read it, then you better make it *accessible* to that average person. The page renders fine for me on Linux/Firefox... -- Bowie
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote: dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. I did consider this, but I didn't think it was reasonable to expect people to change the host names of their transmitting mail servers. MTX has the advantage of only listing mail servers that transmit legitimately, not including servers that only receive, although it might be a distinction worth losing in exchange for increased adoption. And you do think it is reasonable to expect people to create an entirely new DNS subtree? Personally, I would rather change the server name. Yeah and lets not forget that what we are looking at is just another method of whitelisting. You can't seriously expect to block on some attribute that not everyone can or bothers to change (DNS). None of this allows skipping scanning completely anyway (freemails etc? hello?). So it's pointless given that there are already bunch of methods that are easier. Not to mention the proposed blacklisting that can and has been done without MTX.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:55:10 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ You know, just for a moment I thought I would take a look, just for curiosity sake, and instead got this moronic jack-ass ATTITUDE page. Heh. Using IE 7.0 I get: Your browser cannot handle the 9 year old standard required by the web page you attempted to access. ... IE 7.0 displays the page fine, but you have to save the file out as a plain html file. -jeff
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. ok, I should do an s/^ip-/smtp-/ on all our clients' ips... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:25:07PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. ok, I should do an s/^ip-/smtp-/ on all our clients' ips... I don't know if there's some joke included or whatever. If they are sending mail, then yes having a good PTR will result in less greylisting etc.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:25:07PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: ok, I should do an s/^ip-/smtp-/ on all our clients' ips... On 11.02.10 19:34, Henrik K wrote: I don't know if there's some joke included or whatever. If they are sending mail, then yes having a good PTR will result in less greylisting etc. of course ip-212-081-019-000.static.nextra.sk. well, dynamic addresses are listed differently: dial-195-168-160-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. adsl-195-168-244-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. so probably s/^(dial|adsl|ip)-/smtp-/ there are _many_ mailservers not having name indicating they are used for mail and I don't think any form of requiring them to have such name is a good idea... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:42:44PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote: What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have to do is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually identifiable name, like starting with smtp. Much simpler to take advantage of that and it actually is somewhat used today. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:25:07PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: ok, I should do an s/^ip-/smtp-/ on all our clients' ips... On 11.02.10 19:34, Henrik K wrote: I don't know if there's some joke included or whatever. If they are sending mail, then yes having a good PTR will result in less greylisting etc. of course ip-212-081-019-000.static.nextra.sk. well, dynamic addresses are listed differently: dial-195-168-160-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. adsl-195-168-244-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. so probably s/^(dial|adsl|ip)-/smtp-/ there are _many_ mailservers not having name indicating they are used for mail and I don't think any form of requiring them to have such name is a good idea... If the owner of such IP wants, he will order the change (if possible). No one is _requiring_ them to have any name, but what name do you think will pass the most mail? If you are the ISP, it's not your job to start changing anything without notice.
Re: [sa] Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote: What page were you looking at? All I see at that URL is a fairly straightforward description of how to implement his MTX system. The page 'redirects' to this one: http://www.chaosreigns.com/fail It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using Internet Explorer, with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser. - C
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 11-Feb-2010, at 09:55, Charles Gregory wrote: You are welcome to your opinions on browsers, and are free to whine about the evils of microsoft all you want, but if you are going to post a link with the intent for the 'average' person to read it, then you better make it *accessible* to that average person. Erm.. The string microsoft doesn't even exist on that page. -- 'Have you lost your senses?' 'Yes, but I may have found some better ones.' --Interesting Times
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote: It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using Internet Explorer, Good. Get a real browser. with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser. It is, and this is explained clearly. IE does not support (I believe has never supported and still does not support) Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml, and does not, has not, and will probably never suport SVG images (though there were no images on the original page). Who would you like to blame for this if not Microsoft IE? -- I WILL NOT FAKE MY WAY THROUGH LIFE Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F03
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
LuKreme wrote: On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote: It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using Internet Explorer, Good. Get a real browser. with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser. It is, and this is explained clearly. IE does not support (I believe has never supported and still does not support) Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml, and does not, has not, and will probably never suport SVG images (though there were no images on the original page). Who would you like to blame for this if not Microsoft IE? I would blame whoever set up the website. The page in question does not even attempt to use the features that the fail page refers to. IE may not be able to handle xhtml+xml or SVG images, but as long as it can render the page in question, who cares? That redirect should be limited to pages that actually use the features in question. -- Bowie
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote: Erm.. The string microsoft doesn't even exist on that page. No Microsoft browser supports this 9 year old standard. Obviously you are't using IE and so you weren't subjected to the arrogant refusal of his server to deliver the requested page. (shrug) - C
Re: [sa] Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote: It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using Internet Explorer, Good. Get a real browser. Like I said, he (and you) can rant all you want about the evils of Microsoft, and frankly I wouldn't be inclined to argue with you. (grin) But the moment someone posts a link that purports to lead to *content* and replaces that content with (essentially) a political *rant*, and does so only on the basis of that same policitcal BS, then they are no better than the spammer who uses his latest clever trick to get political spam into my mailbox. Quiet ironic for a discussion on an anti-spam list. :) - C
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: method of whitelisting. You can't seriously expect to block on some attribute that not everyone can or bothers to change (DNS). None of this Correct. I am not suggesting that anyone block anything based on MTX at this time. I suggest using it for whitelisting (small negative score, not absolute whitelisting) alone until it is more broadly in use. This is clearly stated in the Implementation Sequence: Conservative people use these new tests to reduce false positives: score MTX_BL 1 score MTX_PASS -1 # Only hit if MTX_BL wasn't. score MTX_FAIL 0.001 Except for those who are willing to cause a small number of false positives, like me. I can, and do, score more harshly those emails that do not have MTX records. And the senders get an error mentioning the option of MTX. All the emails that have been hit seemed likely to be spam. For example, this list gets through just fine with these settings: score MTX_PASS -100 score MTX_FAIL 2 As to the problem of freemail, sites that send both non-spam and spam, constantly, I think that necessitates a blacklist that allows you to define a score per domain (of the PTR record of the sending IP). So, for example, you could blacklist hotmail to only negate the benefit of them having an MTX record, so for hotmail, the net result would be 0. It's funny how, for just believing I may have come up with an idea that is new and useful for dealing with spam, I am consistently attacked. Because people often believe that, and they're almost always wrong. I can't blame you, purely statistically speaking, I'm probably wrong. And I assure you that fact has not slipped my mind. -- Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'. - The Color of Magic http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Bowie Bailey wrote: I would blame whoever set up the website. The page in question does not even attempt to use the features that the fail page refers to. (nod) I guess that really says it all Thanks for mentioning this. Now my 'vague feeling' is confirmed. - C
Re: MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
Bowie Bailey wrote: LuKreme wrote: On 11-Feb-2010, at 11:11, Charles Gregory wrote: It's a rant page telling the visitor that you cannot read the site using Internet Explorer, Good. Get a real browser. with major (large font) attitude that this is the fault of the browser. It is, and this is explained clearly. IE does not support (I believe has never supported and still does not support) Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml, and does not, has not, and will probably never suport SVG images (though there were no images on the original page). Who would you like to blame for this if not Microsoft IE? I would blame whoever set up the website. The page in question does not even attempt to use the features that the fail page refers to. IE may not be able to handle xhtml+xml or SVG images, but as long as it can render the page in question, who cares? That redirect should be limited to pages that actually use the features in question. The redirect states ...9 year old standard required by the web page... so you obviously are blind, because the website developer couldn't possibly be lying. ;-) I would refer the redirect author to the section The Myth of HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents in the following document http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml for an adult's understanding of why IE does not support it. The solution is HTML5 support in IE, and once the HTML5 people are finished wrangling amongst themselves, IE will support it. That is why Microsoft joined the SVG working group of w3c last month - because now with Adobe pulling their support of their SVG IE plugin last year, it looks like we finally might have some movement in that B.M. called HTML5. The fact is the 4.01 standard is over a decade old. If the HTML5 people had agreed on a set of standards 5 years ago then we would have support for SVG and XHTML it in IE today. The second fact is that if MS HAD supported SVG and XHTML then the W3C would have come under tremendous pressure to force out that HTML5 standard. I don't think they would have liked that any better. Ted
MTX plugin created (Re: Spam filtering similar to SPF, less breakage)
http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ -- Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken http://www.ChaosReigns.com
