Many of 'US' read the IETF Postings...
Most of the 'IMPLIMENTERS' or 'POTENTIAL IMPLIMENTERS' out there do not! They
only know what the media is reporting... Which is only what the BigBoyz are
stating... Following the recent posts here, there exists the same sentiment
that I have. I obviously state it in a different manner... I tend to 'Grate
& Irretate'.
Be Safe!!
Smitty
On Thursday 09 September 2004 01:08 pm, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 09 September 2004 12:14 pm, Steven Earl Smith wrote:
Microsoft claims all right...
Microsoft *DOESN'T* claim all rights to Sender ID. If you read carefully
through the IETF postings by Harry Katz, he lays no claim to the stuff in
the core document, which is pretty much SPF. He only asserts rights on the
other documents that came from Caller ID.
You should stick up for it..
Trust me, if you follow the IETF postings, they are sticking up for it. SPF
isn't really Mengs idea in the patent sense. Prior art exists as early as
1997 by one named Jim Miller.
As far as the title, I feel Meng should call Cloudmark and explain that
Sender ID doesn't belong to Microsoft and it is inappropriate to call it
Microsoft's Sender ID.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBQLglBFeYcclU5Q0RAmzsAKDFQGV7dRyu+mo8mECvVxz/0xyvnQCgltaS
24gisnAnRARxJr03SxySb7w=
=xP4l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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