Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com> Wed, 19 June 1996 12:21 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15975; 19 Jun 96 8:21 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15971; 19 Jun 96 8:21 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07643; 19 Jun 96 8:21 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21631; 19 Jun 96 7:58 EDT
Received: from relay.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21610; 19 Jun 96 7:53 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id HAA26688; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:55:05 -0400
Received: from sol.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma026686; Wed, 19 Jun 96 07:54:37 -0400
Received: from relay.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA12124; Wed, 19 Jun 96 07:54:36 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id HAA26680; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:54:35 -0400
Received: from pilot.is.chrysler.com(204.189.94.35) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma026677; Wed, 19 Jun 96 07:54:18 -0400
Received: by pilot.firewall.is.chrysler.com; id HAA00099; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:56:47 -0400
Received: from clhubgw1-le0.is.chrysler.com(172.29.128.203) by pilot.is.chrysler.com via smap (g3.0.1) id sma001934; Wed, 19 Jun 96 07:53:22 -0400
Received: from rgm3 by clhubgw1-nf0.is.chrysler.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1) id HAA07563; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:56:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960619115039.00b5a7f0@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
X-Sender: t3125rm@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 07:50:39 -0400
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, ipsec@tis.com, gnu@toad.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Subject: Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
X-Orig-Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
At 03:14 PM 6/18/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > >Rick said: > >> ... >> I'll be happy to look at any well thought out argument, but I'm not going to >> do the digging. Comments like "I'm sure Blacker invalidates this" are too >> ambiguous to chase down. Sounds like the Rick Adams of old. Good to see that success has not spoiled him ;) Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212
- UUNET Network Encryption Patents C. Harald Koch
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Jack De Winter
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents John Ioannidis
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents C. Harald Koch
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Per Unell
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents John Gilmore
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Robert Moskowitz
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Steven Bellovin
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents MarkVon
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Perry E. Metzger
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Carl F. Muckenhirn
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Robert Moskowitz
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Jim Thompson
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Perry E. Metzger
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Carl F. Muckenhirn
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Jim Thompson
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Perry E. Metzger
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Phil Karn
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Phil Karn
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Jim Thompson
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Steven Bellovin
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Joe Tardo
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Jonathan M. Smith
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Stephen Kent
- Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents Stephen Kent
- Re: UPenn Network Encryption Patent John Gilmore
- Re: UPenn Network Encryption Patent Jonathan M. Smith