"william(at)elan" == william(at)elan net <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
writes:
william(at)elan> I've kind of compromise idea for the "licensing
william(at)elan> issue". While we wait for Microsoft to respond on
william(at)elan> what exactly does their patent cover, I've strong
william(at)elan> feeling that the only thing it might potentially
william(at)elan> cover is algorithm to find which is the address
william(at)elan> to use for PRA from other mail headers.
I really hope that's not the case. The algorithm described in the
original Microsoft Caller ID proposal is exactly the algorithm that I
(and I presume everyone else who's read the RFCs) has always mentally
applied when reading the message headers.
It's an inevitable consequence of the way those fields are defined in
(2)822.
-roy