[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ

To: George Mitchell <george@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:05:37 +0200
Cc: ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: NIC France
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i

[Shifting from the legal and political issue...]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:01:47PM -0700,
 George Mitchell <george@xxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 61 lines which said:

> * SPF+SRS is embodied in working code.  (Two widely publicized
>   implementations, and there are probably others.)
> * SPF+SRS is deployed.
> * SPF+SRS is not encumbered by any intellectual property claims.

SPF is coded and deployed. SRS is much less common (IMHO the SUBMITTER
extension could make SRS unnecessary).

References:
- Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ
  - From: gmc
- Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ
  - From: George Mitchell

Prev by Date: Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages
Next by Date: Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages
Previous by thread: Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ
Next by thread: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread