Re: [Asrg] Revised proposal

From: "Scott Nelson" <scott@spamwolf.com>
> Mailblocks holds and is enforcing two patents on challenge response.
> (US 6,199,102 and US 6,112,227)
>
> This doesn't kill the idea entirely, but I do think it's bad form to
> require something that uses patented technology without at least
> mentioning the patent.
>
> P.S.
> I Hope the pending lawsuit will make this point moot.
> Shameless plug for my take on the subject, and a plea for more prior art;
>    http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/

Thanks for pointing that out.  This would be bad since I think the key thing in my
proposal is that a certified server must use challenge-response for
"unauthenticated" mail.  Not only is this the bridge from the current system, I
think revocation of credentials would be much prompter if there were a viable, yet
slightly annoying fallback.  That challenge-response is slightly annoying is a
feature, not a bug!

This is more serious than patents on sender authentication, since I think more than
one authenticating technology, as well as authenticating authority, can coexist.

Still, I would like to get a list of any related patents, as well as other potential
legal issues.

And thanks for your work in uncovering prior art.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg