Re: Processing after the end of DATA
2010-08-09 23:18:52
ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
<csg> writes:
As a result, duplicates were such a staggering huge problem. To mitigate
that, Postini computed a SHA-1 hash for every message, and if there was
any evidence that the receiver had sent the 250 OK, but the sender never
got it, the hash was saved in a database. If the sender resent the
message, the proxy (knowing it had already been delivered) quietly ate
it.
When that database broke, the customers noticed immediately. The effect
was that significant.
First of all, in the interests of full and proper disclosure, I should
mention that this particular trick is patented: US Patent #7080123.
(I'm the author, but Oracle owns the patent.)
Ridiculous!
Dupe checking method was an essential design requirement since the 80s.
Every Fidonet Mailer since the 80s and basically all online hosting
systems, including Wildcat! all had dupe checking since the 80s.
This is a yet another case of a frivolous patent based on the new 1996
Time Line where the existing methods and technology pre 1996 could not
be patent was now open to patentability. I seen it all the time and
of course, it doesn't apply to companies and organizations that have
used these simple methods as normal engineering requirement - Markus
RULES!
Dupe checking was an essential SOFTWARE requirement in network
topologies where mail dupes was an extremely high occurrence. It
wasn't an exception but an every minute expectation.
Fidonet use the network control lines called SEEN-BY lines which is
technologically the same as used today by he NNTP PATH line with bang
domain addresses. The hidden SEEN-BY lines recorded every node
touching the message as it passed thru the network. When the growth
of SEEN-BY lines got too large, Tiny SEEN-BY lines were introduced to
reduced the syntax recording by COUNTRY, REGIONS or ZONES, NETs with
ZONES and NODES within NETS.
With the advent of 822, the Message-ID was used at the LOCAL HOST
level, but that was not alway reliable so a local HASH was recorded
and there was never any retransmitted DUPES allowed. The DUPE system
was generic at the back end so it didn't matter what network the mail
come from: Fidonet, UUCICO, SMTP, QWK, OPX, UTI, etc including as
posted by a local user online!
A ridiculous patent - no patent can deny was is technologically
fundamental and require for normal operations. DUPE CHECKING was a
basic ingredient in ALL mail network software since the annals of
time. I can not think of one system worth its salt that did not have a
dupe checking concept. What? Are we suppose to stop using was so
fundamental in all our software since the 80s?
Geez!
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, (continued)
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Hector Santos
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA,
Hector Santos <=
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, SM
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, David MacQuigg
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, David MacQuigg
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, John Levine
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, David MacQuigg
- Re: Processing after the end of DATA, Дилян Палаузов
|
|
|