On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:57:57PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
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.
Relying on the examiner to resolve this mess is relying on a very
uncertain factor. In fact, I doubt any examiner at the patent office is
capable of correctly judging this claim (or they would have to ask their
email administrator to double as an examiner :)
Anyway, that why we should
[...] 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.
I must admit I haven't studied unified spf with the thoroughness it
should, but this is at the moment very high on my to-do list.
Is http://spf.pobox.com/unified/ still the state the proposal is in?
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/