This will be quite interesting to see how this pans out. After reading the
claims, a few potential holes in this patent could be:
Is there a difference between "changing" a DNS entry and "adding" a DNS
entry. Claim 1a specifically states "changing" a DNS entry. Well, if I
don't change it, but rather add another one, one could make the argument
that there is no infringement.
Is there a difference between addressing email to a Domain vs. a destination
email server? Claim 1b covers "..email message data addressed to the
destination mail server...". Well, my email is never addressed to a
destination mail server. It's addressed to a Domain.
What does "processing" cover? Claim 1c talks about "processing the email
data". Does relaying an email mean processing it? I did a quick search
through their patent for the word "relay" and it does not show anywhere. If
they have not shown how their invention is different from the prior art of
an email relay, they might be very susceptible to an easy prior-art argument
as mail relays are very well documented.
Claim 1 is pretty general. One could make an argument that it is a
description of an typical SMTP relay, which is obvious prior art. It would
be interesting to see how the Patent Examiner forced them to differentiate
that claim over a normal relay process.
If their claims hold, there's a lot of MX routing antispam solutions out
there that might be very concerned. They might also be able to go after
anyone that relays email, at least according to Claims 1 & 19.
Peter Kay
President, Titan Key Software
-----Original Message-----
From: Devdas Bhagat [mailto:devdas(_at_)dvb(_dot_)homelinux(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:45 AM
To: Lane Sharman
Cc: Sauer, Damon; ASRG
Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server?
On 03/05/04 11:56 -0700, Lane Sharman wrote:
I work with Postini every day. 7 days a week vending the
solution to
customers.
I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on
the notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is
processing, not
relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the
"Processing at an intermediate point" also covers a server
acting as an application level gateway filtering on content.
patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet
to decide
if the patent has merit.
My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a
constructive manner, not interpret the merit of the patent
or patent law in general.
Protecting users from canned meat? :)
Please respect Hormel's trademark.
Devdas Bhagat
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg