Man... this really makes me sad.
I can't believe in anti forgery techs poping out all the time...
The way things are going all I can see is that every one will have
their own "anti-forgery" solution and the mess will continue.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:03:01 +0100, Christian Brunschen
<cb(_at_)df(_dot_)lth(_dot_)se> wrote:
On 20 Aug 2004, at 14:57, Jason Gurtz wrote:
On 8/20/2004 09:42, AccuSpam wrote:
http://accuspam.com/senderkeys.php
Given that: "The IPR and license of SenderKeysTM will be detailed later
in a separate document." How do you expect anyone here to take you
seriously at this time?
And not only that. That sentence to me is a direct *disincentive* to
talking with 'AccuSpam(TM)' about anything - because they might just
take some idea(s) mentioned in that discussion and claim them as part
of 'their IP', for which rights and licenses are not yet known. As a
worst-case scenario, they could gather interesting ideas, write them
up, send them off to USPTO and demand that anyone who implements
anything like that pay them a hefty license fee.
// Christian Brunschen
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com