Subject: RE: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-iet f-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:29:55 -0700

> From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:[email-masked]]
> P.S. For the authors of this patent reading the list, I'll 
> note that I 
> found it funny that patent mentions taking first address of the From 
> header. The RFC2822 is very clear that if From header is group of
> addresses, then Sender header MUST be present and that is where info
> is to be looked at (if its not, one can probably discard the message 
> as not RFC compliant). I  simply did not expect such a stupid 
> mistake as
> far as email standars are concerned to be part of the patent text.

The email system in use has never been fully RFC compliant.

RFC 2822 was an attempt to rectify that problem, twenty years after
the fact. If you are writing a patent you are well advised to make
claims with respect to both theory and practice.

Specifications only become standards if the authors can persuade
people to implement and deploy.

There is no automatic right that this group or any other has to
have the advice it gives to the Internet community acted upon.

Nobody ever elected us to make decisions on their behalf. We are
not accountable to the Internet community. Those who do not accept
accountability cannot hold others accountable.

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

<off-topic>

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote in
<[email-masked]>:

>The email system in use has never been fully RFC compliant.RFC 2822 was 
>an attempt to rectify that problem, twenty years after the fact.

I agree with above, but I note that it seems to contradict same author's 
earlier statement (below). Either we truly agrees that supporting RFC2822 
(no matter if its "proposed" or "draft" statement right now) is important 
towards fixing problems with email non-comliance or we continue to be in 
the 80s world with positions like this:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote in
<[email-masked]>:

>I am not going to use a different email client to post to this list, the
>references field is NOT mandatory. And a RIM device is in any case not
>going to support anything other than top posting. And in any case RFC
>2822 is NOT an IETF standard while RFC 822 is. I have a standards
>compliant email client, folk who demand support for Draft standards
>will be ignored.

P.S. As a frequent top-poster myself, I note that it is inappropriate
to critisize this practice simply because one does not use it. The 
practice is not against any standards and as frequent readers of the
email list are expected to have already read message being replied to 
they cat actually benefit from not having to scroll through bunch of ">>>" 
first. Top-posting also allows to designate when you're replying to
entire email as opposed to when replying to specific parts of the email
in which case buttom-posting is more favorable to clearly designate the 
part being replied to. Both conventions have their own use in email world.

</off-topic>

---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]