----- Original Message -----
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: Paper on Path and Cryptographic Authentication Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPR Disclosure: Algorithm I described above for doing path authorization
after forwarding based on hostname from crypto signatures is patent
pending. License is expected to be compatible with GPL programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, another Patent Terrorist!
Two food crumbles to pick up and nibble on:
RFC 2821 already states it is possible for path authorization to take place
AFTER the forwarding path. This should be enough to nullify your patent
application.
You are aware there is a bill pending that will require patent applicants to
show proof of demonstration or implementation? This is address the Patent
Trolls or Terrorists who frivolous file for patent "ideas" without any
intention of creating a product or putting into practice - this is like the
old school days!
Anyway, as long as my system is based on a SMTP TMS generic framework, no
email patent has any legs in court.
IP: result := EPV(IP)
HELO: result := EPV-CDN(IP,HELO)
MAIL FROM: result := EPV-RPATH(IP,HELO,MFROM)
RCPT TO: result := EPV-FPATH(IP,HELO,MFROM, RCPT)
DATA: result := EPV-DATA(IP,HELO,MFROM, RCPT, DATA)
POSTSMTP: result := EPV-POST(IP,HELO,MFROM, RCPT,DATA)
Our system already does all CHECKING after the Forwarding checking is done
and has been doing it atleast 2 years now. What is in "internals" is not
important, the end result is the same and a detailed patent MARKUS
analysis will tell you that:
821-A + 822-B + META-C(821-A,822-B) != PATENT META
So my advice?
If you want any hope of this to be considered, get off the IPR train. That
alone will nix all considerations in my book. You haven't even proven it
will work and I am not going to help you MAKE it work if it is going to be a
patented concept.
Also, if this a generic framework as I asked before, I believe you borrowed
the "generic framework" ideas from my discussions here and in other places.
However, my key goals in SMTP TMS and having a CORE framework was to help
pre-empt patent terrorism, to help the industry get a solid foundation for
new creativity without IPR threats getting in the way. Your EPV TMS method
can be patented, but it is weaken by the fact that it is useless without the
generic framework - which a MARKUS analysis will clearly tell you, it can't
be patented or isn't unique or novel enough to be patented.
But I grant you that we live in era today that you can now even patent BATCH
files! So all power to you, but don't believe it can be enforceable and
all you are doing is wasting everyone's time - including your own.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com