Thankyou for your comments. My comments are in the body of the message
below. This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003.
An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003. Datails of the 'CAA'
have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system.
'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear
as soon as the documentation can be written.
The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis
Mark McCarron.
Message: 7
From: "Tom Thomson" <tthomson(_at_)neosinteractive(_dot_)com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>,
<asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:37:04 +0100
> I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues
that
> was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases.
I think the GIEIS theory must be that the ends justify the means - even if
we bring servers to a total halt while they respond to all these pointless
scans, that's OK because our hearts are pure - we are only trying to reduce
spam.
>
Mark's Response:
'GIEIS' would not be bringing to a halt any network. Scans can be performed
without such implications.
> I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the
proposal
> is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in
spam
> as a result would be.
I too looked at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis. Like you, I
have little idea what is being proposed (it might have helped if it had
been
written by someone with at least an elementary school understanding of
English spelling and grammar).
Mark's Response:
Please feel free to deduct 5% of my final result for improper usage of the
english language. :)
Perhaps it is RMX without DNS (the
distributed DNS system being replaced for this purpose by the GIEIS Central
Servers), or something very similar to that, but it is not really clear.
Mark's Response:
This system is very clearly demonstrated and it is neither.
I
was particularly amused by the "encrypted ID code", which I take to be
invocation of the meaningless word-of-power "encrypted" rather than
anything
to do with encryption as understood by cryptologists.
Mark's Response:
Nope, we are talking about cryptographic ciphers.
> Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend
confidence,
> I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law.
I'm not at all surprised that you are not aware of something that does not
exist!
> Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself.
Even
> the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this.
Perhaps the distinction between Copyright and Patent is lost on the author?
Mark's Response:
Perhaps the issue relating to software patents is lost on the entire
industry. Consider this statement:
"It can be argued that a patent requires a process or a method to be
demonstrated before a patent can be issued and that software patents fail to
do either. The process or method would be the physical transport of
electrical pulses, not the code itself. The code itself is rather 'an
abstract concept' and thus should not qualify for a patent. It would be
similar to seeking a patent for a thought. This has come about due to the
lack of technical understanding of patent office, its relation to the law
and may result in the withdrawl of all software patents unless legal
definitions are altered."
Also the topic of the mailing list is Spam not Patents.
Mark McCarron
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg