Subject: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server?

From: "Sauer, Damon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:19:03 -0500

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1568961,00.asp

*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers."  113

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

---

From: Lane Sharman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 11:56:11 -0700

I work with Postini every day. 7 days a week vending the solution to 
customers.

I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on the 
notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is processing, not 
relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the 
patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet to decide if 
the patent has merit.

My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a constructive 
manner, not interpret the merit of the patent or patent law in general.

Kindest,

Lane

-- 
Lane Sharman
Providing Private and SPAM-Free Email
http://www.opendoors.com
858-755-2868

---

From: Devdas Bhagat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:14:33 +0530

> relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the 
"Processing at an intermediate point" also covers a server acting as an
application level gateway filtering on content.

> manner, not interpret the merit of the patent or patent law in general.
Protecting users from canned meat? :)
Please respect Hormel's trademark.

Devdas Bhagat

---

From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:47:55 -1000

This will be quite interesting to see how this pans out. After reading the
claims, a few potential holes in this patent could be:

Is there a difference between "changing" a DNS entry and "adding" a DNS
entry.  Claim 1a specifically states "changing" a DNS entry. Well, if I
don't change it, but rather add another one, one could make the argument
that there is no infringement. 

Is there a difference between addressing email to a Domain vs. a destination
email server? Claim 1b covers "..email message data addressed to the
destination mail server...".  Well, my email is never addressed to a
destination mail server. It's addressed to a Domain. 

What does "processing" cover?  Claim 1c talks about "processing the email
data".  Does relaying an email mean processing it?  I did a quick search
through their patent for the word "relay" and it does not show anywhere.  If
they have not shown how their invention is different from the prior art of
an email relay, they might be very susceptible to an easy prior-art argument
as mail relays are very well documented.

Claim 1 is pretty general. One could make an argument that it is a
description of an typical SMTP relay, which is obvious prior art.  It would
be interesting to see how the Patent Examiner forced them to differentiate
that claim over a normal relay process.

If their claims hold, there's a lot of MX routing antispam solutions out
there that might be very concerned.  They might also be able to go after
anyone that relays email, at least according to Claims 1 & 19. 

Peter Kay
President, Titan Key Software 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Devdas Bhagat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:45 AM
> To: Lane Sharman
> Cc: Sauer, Damon; ASRG
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server?
> 
> > I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on 
> > the notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is 
> processing, not 
> "Processing at an intermediate point" also covers a server 
> acting as an application level gateway filtering on content.
> 
> > patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet 
> to decide 
> > if the patent has merit.
> >
> > 
> > My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a 
> > constructive manner, not interpret the merit of the patent 
> or patent law in general.

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 May 2004 04:56:20 -0000

Postini's patent is on the specific technique of preprocessing
someone's mail by setting up the MX to point to an offsite
preprocessing server that redelivers the laundered mail to the actual
server.  It's not a patent on general mail relay.

I've seen pretty persuasive evidence that people other than Postini
did this before Postini and published the fact that they were doing
so.  If someone wanted to spend the money to bust this patent, they
could, but patent litigation is expensive.

Has Postini said what they plan to do with the patent?  Is it
defensive, to keep anyone else from patenting the same thing, or do
they plan to go after their competitors?

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

---

From: "Walter Dnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:07 -0400

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:56:20AM -0000, John Levine wrote
> server.  It's not a patent on general mail relay.

  Don't look now, Postini has just patented outsourcing.  Think of all
the western corporations who've been doing this for years.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did