spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004

2004-09-02 19:57:57
From: Stuart D. Gathman
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:15 PM

<...>

Since M$ has patented looking at the standard headers, we
would have to invent new ones like 'Forwarder:'.

Though I would never be sp foolish to infringe a Microsoft patent, nor
advise anyone else to do so, let's remember something.  What MS
currently has is a patent _application_.  That is very different from a
patent.  Until it is allowed or rejected, it is something to watch very
carefully.  If it is granted, we need to pay a lot of attention to what
claims were allowed.  Patent examiners are at a large disadvantage when
dealing with an organization as experienced as Microsoft, but they're
not stupid.  While the big boys often win, they sometimes don't.  Like
the man said, "it ain't over 'till it's over".

I'm sure they'll fight hard to get something granted just to save face,
but the examiner does have the ability to reduce their claims to a
shadow of what they are asking for.  They do have a substantial burden
to prove that this is not "obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the
art".  Their method also REQUIRES changes to forwarding practice as
described in RFC2822.  If the examiner sees those changes as integral to
the invention, which they appear to be, they may wind up only with
claims based on forwarding practices that will never be adopted.

Let's do our best to evangelize for SPF classic, consider if and how we
want to develop Unified SPF, insist on adherence to RFC2821 and RFC2822,
and in the process make Microsoft irrelevant in email authentication.

--

Seth Goodman