Subject: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Next Response

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:02:44 +0000

Thankyou for your comments.  My comments are in the body of the message 
below.  This post refers to the 'GIEIS' system currently at version 0.003.  
An update was carried out on the next 4th July 2003.  Datails of the 'CAA' 
have be released as well as details regarding the 'CICFS' filtration system. 
  'GIEIS' has an extensive list of systems to be added and they will appear 
as soon as the documentation can be written.

The 'GIEIS' system can be viewed here at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis

Mark McCarron.

>
>Message: 7
>From: "Tom Thomson" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 'GIEIS' - The Fourth Response
>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:37:04 +0100
>
> > I seem to remember that excessive port scanning was one of the issues 
>that
> > was litigated in the new Zealand ORBS cases.
>
>I think the GIEIS theory must be that the ends justify the means - even if
>we bring servers to a total halt while they respond to all these pointless
>scans, that's OK because our hearts are pure - we are only trying to reduce
>spam.
> >

Mark's Response:

'GIEIS' would not be bringing to a halt any network.  Scans can be performed 
without such implications.

> > I tried to read the GIEIS paper and I cannot understand what the 
>proposal
> > is, what it is trying to achieve or what the prospect of a reduction in
>spam
> > as a result would be.
>
>I too looked at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis.  Like you, I
>have little idea what is being proposed (it might have helped if it had 
>been
>written by someone with at least an elementary school understanding of
>English spelling and grammar).

Mark's Response:

Please feel free to deduct 5% of my final result for improper usage of the 
english language. :)

>Perhaps it is RMX without DNS (the
>distributed DNS system being replaced for this purpose by the GIEIS Central
>Servers), or something very similar to that, but it is not really clear.

Mark's Response:

This system is very clearly demonstrated and it is neither.

>I
>was particularly amused by the "encrypted ID code", which I take to be
>invocation of the meaningless word-of-power "encrypted" rather than 
>anything
>to do with encryption as understood by cryptologists.
>

Mark's Response:

Nope, we are talking about cryptographic ciphers.

> > Statements that 'intellectual copyright' is reserved do not lend
>confidence,
> > I am not aware of any such concept in US or international copyright law.
>
>I'm not at all surprised that you are not aware of something that does not
>exist!
>
> > Copyright protects the embodiment of an idea, never the idea itself. 
>Even
> > the EU doctrine of moral right of the author does not cover this.
>
>Perhaps the distinction between Copyright and Patent is lost on the author?
>
>

Mark's Response:

Perhaps the issue relating to software patents is lost on the entire 
industry.  Consider this statement:

"It can be argued that a patent requires a process or a method to be 
demonstrated before a patent can be issued and that software patents fail to 
do either.  The process or method would be the physical transport of 
electrical pulses, not the code itself.  The code itself is rather 'an 
abstract concept' and thus should not qualify for a patent.  It would be 
similar to seeking a patent for a thought.  This has come about due to the 
lack of technical understanding of patent office, its relation to the law 
and may result in the withdrawl of all software patents unless legal 
definitions are altered."

Also the topic of the mailing list is Spam not Patents.

Mark McCarron

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg