In message
<CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A301AE24B6(_at_)vhqpostal6(_dot_)verisign(_dot_)com>,
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes
I know of extensive prior art in this area.
The prior art of using a confirmation mail to validate the sender is who
they claim to be is well established.
Here is a posting from 1 Feb 1991 from someone being asked to confirm
their subscription to a list
http://tinyurl.com/blm5
Here is the announcement in March 1993 that listserv had already
implemented sender confirmation (double opt ins)
http://tinyurl.com/blm8
"When the user sends a subscription request, he is mailed a confirmation
request message"
Mailblocks is completely astonishing that they think they have any
rights to confirming people's identities at all. Never mind that other
people got there at least 6 years before them, there's also the fact
that to anyone with any experience this is "obvious" technology and
therefore fails on those grounds too. What is the inventive step or
process which they are claiming rights to?
Whether you use this to validate a subscriber (safe person to send) to a
mailing list or a safe person to send to your mailbox matters none - the
process is what is patented and the process was already in public use 12
years ago.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, travel, search tools, stop spam and more!
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg