From: "Scott Nelson" <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg