Subject: Re: [Asrg] Revised proposal

From: Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:52:54 -0700

At 10:31 AM 5/2/03 -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote:
[snip happens]
>IV. CHALLENGE-RESPONSE

Mailblocks holds and is enforcing two patents on challenge response.
(US 6,199,102 and US 6,112,227)

This doesn't kill the idea entirely, but I do think it's bad form to 
require something that uses patented technology without at least
mentioning the patent.

P.S.
I Hope the pending lawsuit will make this point moot.
Shameless plug for my take on the subject, and a plea for more prior art;
   http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/

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

---

From: "Ken Hirsch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:37:14 -0400

From: "Scott Nelson" <[email-masked]>
>    http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/

Thanks for pointing that out.  This would be bad since I think the key thing in my
proposal is that a certified server must use challenge-response for
"unauthenticated" mail.  Not only is this the bridge from the current system, I
think revocation of credentials would be much prompter if there were a viable, yet
slightly annoying fallback.  That challenge-response is slightly annoying is a
feature, not a bug!

This is more serious than patents on sender authentication, since I think more than
one authenticating technology, as well as authenticating authority, can coexist.

Still, I would like to get a list of any related patents, as well as other potential
legal issues.

And thanks for your work in uncovering prior art.