Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update

Vernon Schryver <> Mon, 09 June 2003 02:22 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07250 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h592MVg10889 for; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:31 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592MVB10886 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07246; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:22:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCGo-00071j-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:20:26 -0400
Received: from ([] by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCGo-00071g-00; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:20:26 -0400
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592LDB10853; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:21:13 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h592KBB10794 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:20:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07225 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCEZ-000716-00 for; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:18:07 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PCEY-000711-00 for; Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:18:06 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h592K5V7010237 for env-from <vjs>; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:20:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update
References: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:20:05 -0600

> From: Yakov Shafranovich <>

> 1. For the record of all the ASRG members - I am not a lawyer and do not 
> claim to be one. The entire purpose of this document that I am keeping on 
> my own free time, it to record any IPR issues as they come up on the list. 
> I am not searching the USPTO database, not Googling the entire Internet 
> looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them.

On the contrary, the following words of yours were an analysis or
conclusion of an analysis:

] ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This 
] affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC.

> ...
> 2. The analysis statement in question was made by Bob Wyman not by me (see
> I simply paraphrased it.

Your "paraphrase" differs significantly from Mr. Wyman's original,
and not only in the deletion of Cloudmark and addition of the DCC.
He wrote that some mechanisms "may be an infringement or use" while
you wrote "affects systems such as."  Mr. Wyman avoided hazzards that
you leaped on.  Note that your deletion seems almost as arbitrary and
dubious as your addition.  I assume Mr. Wyman listed Cloudmark as well
as SpamNet, because he has heard what I've heard (or better, knows
instead of only heard), that Vipul's Razor, Pyzor, and SpamNet are
three distinct things and that Cloudmark is currently working on
more than SpamNet.

> ...
> 3. I moved the statement from the notes section to be directly under the 
> list posting reference to make it more clear. I also removed the reference 
> to DCC which seems to have irked you. I re-quoted the original statement as 
> it was written by Bob instead of paraphrasing it.

What?  You're changing the archives of this mailing list?  I'm less
concerned about web pages someone might have, and more concerned about
unchallenged legal claims in a more or less official forum like this.

However, you have repeatedly implied that your list of patents is
somehow comprehensive and authoritative.  I have several times
suppresed the impluse to disagree and urge caution.

> 4. Once again, my list is not intended to keep track of all IPR issues in 
> the world, only of the ones that come up on the list. Are you implying that 
> I should remove all references to all list postings simply because no one 
>on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR matters?

I know I'm not qualifed in general to analyze general IPR matters,
while you've repeatedly implied you are not so limited.  For example,
you might notice that I was careful to not be specific when I disagreed
about the mechanisms (my plural) that you baldly claimed are affected
by that patent.

As I said, your list could be useful, but please do not increase the
hazzards we suffer with ill considered IPR analyses of patents you've
not read and/or anti-spam mechanisms you don't know or care about.

Vernon Schryver
Asrg mailing list