Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier)
Andrew Newton wrote:
4) You have stated above that you believe Microsoft's claim is
"nebulous" with regard to rights being claimed. Your release notes
state "Implemented Sender Policy Framework checking on the From:
header. Be sure to read the documentation and understand the
implication." Since checking of the From: header is listed in the -pra
document, are you concluding that this is not encumbered by
Microsoft's claim? If so, how did you come to this conclusion?
This brings up a point which has been rolling around in the back of my
head for a few days.
We simply _don't_ know what is in the claim. In any other area where
adoption of some program is to be impacted or encumbered in some way
which could cause either a legal liability or an inability to actually
implement on the part of the adopter - particularly such a potentially
widely used program - it is inconceivable that people would be even
considering adopting, or recommending, the program. In fact, if one
had a professional license, and recommended adoption of such a program
without a clear understanding of the encumberance, one could be guilty
of malpractice. But I digress...what has been rolling around in the
back of my head is this:
Can anyone say with 100% certainty that there is *zero* technology,
software, or process, which can be reasonably argued by Microsoft to
belong to them, with regards to *checking*? Bear in mind that I have
some experience in patenting this sort of technology (I have been
involved in the patent work on the Habeas "technology", among others,
and I put that word in quotes because if you look at the Habeas model
I'm guessing many of you would be shocked to realize just how much *is*
patentable as "technology").
Ok, I'm going to guess that some of you might say "yes" to the above.
So, let's put it another way now:
Is the method for checking under Sender I.D. *identical* to the method
for checking for SPF?
Imagine a world where some day you have to pay for a site license to be
able to perform a check. Where the only receiver who *doesn't* have to
pay to perform checks is Microsoft itself.
Again, this is not Microsoft bashing - I personally believe that *any*
large receiver owning the ultimate rights to an authentication system
is a conflict of interest.
And to be honest, for the life of me, I don't understand why SPF, which
already had a lot of support from other corners, isn't what's being
pushed now. Although, of course, for all we know (and I very much
suspect) SPF is probably now in some way encumbered by MS anyways. It
would be foolish of them to embrace and incorporate SPF technology
without first making sure that they darned well owned it. Just like
any other acquisition - you can either put the competitor under, or
|<Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread>
- Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier),
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <=