Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier

Andrew Newton wrote:

> 4) You have stated above that you believe Microsoft's claim is 
> "nebulous" with regard to rights being claimed. Your release notes 
> state "Implemented Sender Policy Framework checking on the From: 
> header. Be sure to read the documentation and understand the 
> implication." Since checking of the From: header is listed in the -pra 
> document, are you concluding that this is not encumbered by 
> Microsoft's claim? If so, how did you come to this conclusion?
This brings up a point which has been rolling around in the back of my 
head for a few days.
We simply _don't_ know what is in the claim.  In any other area where 
adoption of some program is to be impacted or encumbered in some way 
which could cause either a legal liability or an inability to actually 
implement on the part of the adopter - particularly such a potentially 
widely used program - it is inconceivable that people would be even 
considering adopting, or recommending, the program.  In fact, if one 
had a professional license, and recommended adoption of such a program 
without a clear understanding of the encumberance, one could be guilty 
of malpractice.  But I digress...what has been rolling around in the 
back of my head is this:
Can anyone say with 100% certainty that there is *zero* technology, 
software, or process, which can be reasonably argued by Microsoft to 
belong to them, with regards to *checking*?   Bear in mind that I have 
some experience in patenting this sort of technology (I have been 
involved in the patent work on the Habeas "technology", among others, 
and I put that word in quotes because if you look at the Habeas model 
I'm guessing many of you would be shocked to realize just how much *is* 
patentable as "technology").
Ok, I'm going to guess that some of you  might say "yes" to the above.  
So, let's put it another way now:
Is the method for checking under Sender I.D. *identical* to the method 
for checking for SPF?
Imagine a world where some day you have to pay for a site license to be 
able to perform a check.  Where the only receiver who *doesn't* have to 
pay to perform checks is Microsoft itself.
Again, this is not Microsoft bashing - I personally believe that *any* 
large receiver owning the ultimate rights to an authentication system 
is a conflict of interest.
And to be honest, for the life of me, I don't understand why SPF, which 
already had a lot of support from other corners, isn't what's being 
pushed now.  Although, of course, for all we know (and I very much 
suspect) SPF is probably now in some way encumbered by MS anyways.  It 
would be foolish of them to embrace and incorporate SPF technology 
without first making sure that they darned well owned it.  Just like 
any other acquisition - you can either put the competitor under, or 
acquire them.
Anne