You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Ma...@hbinc.com on 2004/09/02 19:23:40 UTC
Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
Kudos to Apache.
Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: pub key http://matthew.vaneerde.com/pgp-public-key.asc
iD8DBQFBN1ccUQQr0VWaglwRAvVEAJ49zggdpW1M6tU3n7G06koZBorVkQCg3NqA
qAUxRz/Fv6T5aEGvTrSpIeI=
=VdsR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
>How is it you can file for a patent on something long after it has
>come into common useage and is already available from multiple
>independent sources?
A most interesting question, since a patent must be filed within 18 months
(or maybe 12 months, I forget) after an invention becomes available to the
public.
Loren
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
One five letter word: Money.
plus one six letter word: Lawyers
plus a surfeit of a four letter word: Gall
{^_^}
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Andersen" <js...@pen.homeip.net>
How is it you can file for a patent on something long after it has
come into common useage and is already available from multiple
independent sources?
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by John Andersen <js...@pen.homeip.net>.
On Thursday 02 September 2004 03:43 pm, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> > Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
> > actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
> > parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply for
> > patents on SPF itself. In any case, it is certainly seems safe to
> > continue using SPF for now.
>
> Considering that they don't *own* SPF, it'd be interesting if they tried to
> patent it. SPF was created by the CTO (?) (I think CTO) at POBox.com.
How is it you can file for a patent on something long after it has
come into common useage and is already available from multiple
independent sources?
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by Steve Sobol <sj...@JustThe.net>.
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
> actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
> parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply for
> patents on SPF itself. In any case, it is certainly seems safe to
> continue using SPF for now.
Considering that they don't *own* SPF, it'd be interesting if they tried to
patent it. SPF was created by the CTO (?) (I think CTO) at POBox.com.
--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by Kevin Peuhkurinen <ke...@hepcoe.com>.
Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply for
patents on SPF itself. In any case, it is certainly seems safe to
continue using SPF for now.
Kelson wrote:
> Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com wrote:
>
>> http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
>
>
> More like "Who needs patent problems?"
>
> The position appears to be 100% on patents and licencing, not on the
> technology or the concept.
>
> Next question: presumably SPF, though now a subset of Sender-Id, is
> still unencumbered, and thus usable in SA 3.0?
>
Re: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
Posted by Kelson <ke...@speed.net>.
Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com wrote:
> http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
More like "Who needs patent problems?"
The position appears to be 100% on patents and licencing, not on the
technology or the concept.
Next question: presumably SPF, though now a subset of Sender-Id, is
still unencumbered, and thus usable in SA 3.0?
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>