Tomorrow’s mobile messaging devices will contain a lot of personal applications, in addition to business applications.

Many will be highly person-dependent. Eg, your editor has a French dictionary, a Le Monde newsfeed, a restaurant guide, a local train and subway guide, among his personal applications. But which personal applications will be the most widespread?

Our guess is:

• Camera-both stills and movies
• Photo and video library
• Music player
• News feeds
• Listen to radio
• Information on local entertainment
• Travel information, information on how to get to places, travel bookings, etc
• Access to financial information
• Shopping lists and applications
• Electronic wallet/payments

Author:  David Ferris

Some commentators have reacted badly to the recent announcement that MSN will start testing for the presence of senders’ SPF records. They have described it as "Microsoft pushing Sender ID down peoples’ throats."  We disagree

Microsoft isn’t asking people to publish SPFv2 records, just SPFv1. Neither is it making them add Sender ID-specific headers to their messages. It’s simply looking for the presence of an SPF record for the sender’s domain, and adding that information into the mix of their anti-spam rules and heuristics.

Also, there’s no requirement on any other email receiving servers to filter using Sender ID’s PRA (purported responsible address) algorithm. Using the Sender ID algorithms to filter spam, as opposed to the SPF algorithms, is entirely in Microsoft’s purview. "My server; my rules," as the saying goes.

The proposed new spam filtering rule at MSN means that certain messages are more likely to be filtered as spam, and certain other messages are less likely to be filtered. This will encourage domain owners to publish SPF records. This is a good thing. Microsoft is using its position as a very large email provider for good.

Author: Richi Jennings, with thanks to Curt Monash for the idea

Download Files:

Analysis of MSN’s Increased Use of SPF/Sender ID

Today, services such as those from MessageLabs, Postini, Frontbridge, MX Logic, and Black Spider focus on filtering email. They mainly look for spam and viruses, and gradually are adding other services such as encryption and archiving.

Such services can apply their scan-and-apply-policy technology to other channels. HTTP sessions are perhaps the most important. Instant messaging is also important. The joint venture between IMlogic and Postini illustrates.

Author: David Ferris

Privacy regulations are now being brought to bear on many small and medium sized organizations, that have very limited IT resources. Such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, and small and medium sized banks. This imposes a requirement for them to be able to process encrypted email.

Very user- and IT-friendly solutions are thus required. Managed email services that provide encryption are therefore an attractive option. CertifiedMail’s ASP Service (http://www.certifiedmail.com/products/ASP/) illustrates. This smallish firm is growing quickly, and a disproportionate amount of its growth is coming from the hosted offering.

Author: David Ferris

Despite the fact that most people with a PC also have a mobile phone, we have the bizarre situation today that on the mobile phone, most people enter contact info directly instead of syncing with their PC.

The reason is that the integration between mobile devices and PCs today is still unwieldy. Literally and figuratively, we have a variety of plugs and sockets that don’t quite match.

By 2008 or 2009, such difficulties should be a thing of the past.

Author: David Ferris, with thanks to Microsoft’s Jason Gordon for raising the thought

When companies acquire a privately held messaging firm, what do they pay?

Most of the deals are two to four times the revenues of the 12 months’ revenues prior to when the deal takes place.

Sometimes the price can be much higher. Eg, in July 2004, Symantec paid $28M for TurnTide. TurnTide had innovative anti-spam technology, 17 employees, and no revenues. Higher prices are generally associated with:

• The buyer getting a lot of leverage from the deal
• M&A negotiation experience on the part of the seller
• Competing bids
• The seller not being too hungry to get a deal

Author: David Ferris