<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

	<channel>

	<title>&#45; CircleID</title>
	<link>https://www.circleid.com/blogs/</link>
	<description>Postings from  on CircleID</description>
	<dc:language>en</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright 2026, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
	<dc:date>2026-04-30T19:14:00+00:00</dc:date>

	
	<item>
		<title> Am I Safer Within an Organization or by Myself? (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20150128_am_i_safer_within_an_organization_or_by_myself</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20150128_am_i_safer_within_an_organization_or_by_myself</link>
		<description><![CDATA[An Internet Bill of Rights may or may not be a good idea. The point here is that, besides highly commendable topics such as net neutrality and privacy, some of them seem to mandate cybersecurity. Approved in Brazil last May, the Marco Civil includes the principle of preservation of stability, security and functionality of the network, via technical measures consistent with international standards.  <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20150128_am_i_safer_within_an_organization_or_by_myself">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-04-30T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Review Your Email Forwarding Practices (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postsreview_your_email_forwarding_practices</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postsreview_your_email_forwarding_practices</link>
		<description><![CDATA[As unusual as it may be for a lawyer to speak at a IETF meeting, Ian Walden gave a lecture on Data Protection Directives and updates thereof. He said they affect some 90 jurisdictions. A difference between email addresses and cookies - the latter are the main subject of the January 2012 update of the directives - is that after more than a decade of enforcement, specific browser extensions may allow users to browse what cookies they have, while no record states whom they conferred their email addresses to. <a href="https://circleid.com/postsreview_your_email_forwarding_practices">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-04-30T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Abuse Reporting: Names vs Numbers (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/posts20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/posts20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers</link>
		<description><![CDATA[For email usage, abuse reporting requires cooperation between senders and receivers. That's why RFC 5965 specified a standard format for it. However, Wikipedia lists only 18 feedback providers today. It is often said that the number of legitimate mailbox providers in the world is rather small, possibly some hundreds of thousands, but certainly more than that. <a href="https://circleid.com/posts20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-04-30T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Turn the Table on Content Filtering (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/poststurn_the_table_on_content_filtering</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/poststurn_the_table_on_content_filtering</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Why do we run content filters at the recipient's side? <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html">Paul Graham's Plan for Spam</a> introduced them that way. After several years, we can say that plan doesn't work very well. Email has become much less reliable. One way to recover reliability, at least between trusted parties, is to run filters at the sender's side. Let's look at the diagram in more detail... <a href="https://circleid.com/poststurn_the_table_on_content_filtering">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-04-30T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	
	<item>
		<title> Hotmail Running Its Own SMTP Variation (Featured Blog)</title>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">https://circleid.com/postshotmail_running_own_smtp</guid>
		<link>https://circleid.com/postshotmail_running_own_smtp</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Companies sensible to effective delivery of email to all free email services may have noticed problems with deliveries to Hotmail addresses. Despite the SMTP dialog ending with a successful "250" return code, recipients don't see the message. In their <a href="http://postmaster.msn.com/Guidelines.aspx">Guidelines</a>, MSN require thorough compliance with IETF standards. However, it seems they have their own interpretation about provisions for <em>Delivery Status Notifications</em>, a.k.a. bounces, that servers must send after they have accepted responsibility for delivering the message... <a href="https://circleid.com/postshotmail_running_own_smtp">More...</a>]]></description>
		<dc:date>2026-04-30T12:14:00-07:00</dc:date>
	</item>
	

	</channel>
</rss>