Re: HELO and Unified



On Sep 15, 2004, at 1:24 AM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:

This cannot work since not all receivers can do SUBMITTER sincematching
SUBMITTER to the message is patent-encumbered


How did you come to this conclusion?

-andy

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), John Leslie RHSBLs (was Re: HELO, IPR, A&R ..., Matthew Elvey Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY- IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton <= Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch Re: HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong Re: HELO and Unified, Jim Fenton Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch Re: HELO and Unified, Douglas Otis Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan Re: HELO and Unified, Matthew Elvey Re: HELO and Unified, Frank Ellermann