Semantic Correction:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hector Santos" <spf-discuss(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
That is why I would worry about it and never did. MS can stop
me from examining the prior existence of entities or variables
of a process which has very limited meaning. That is one of
the Markus test.
That is why I would NOT worry about it and never did. MS can NOT stop me
from examining the prior existence of entities or variables of a EXISTING
process which has very limited meaning or ways to extract the variable. This
is one of the fundamental considerations in the Markus test for patents.
This is like inventing a tool to pulling nose hair!. They might a patent
on the tool itself, but they can't stop you from pulling your nose hairs any
other way! <g>
Since the From: To: Sender: etc, are all prior art fundamental entities of
the SMTP process, no patent can dictate how you can used this or put
another way, it will be very weak.
Now, if MS invented a "MS-SENDER-ID:" header that is needed to make this
work, then we have a different story - a strong patent.
But that is not the case here. Everything is based on prior art.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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