-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- security curmudgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Likewise, bears repeating: > > If prior art had anti-virus software scanning incoming mail for viruses before passing to the client, but only did so on the SMTP server.. and the TM patent covers an additional device (proxy / appliance / whatever), then that is hardly patent-worthy in many people's opinion. > > >If you disagree, then I should patent a system where the mail is passed to > *two* devices before the SMTP server, one which scans for MALWARE since the patent only says 'virus', and the other that scans for viruses. Such a patent can be worded the same as the TM patent, just s/virus/malware and it should be just as valid. Right? > I can't really agree or disagree. Sorry. I'm trying to extricate myself from this and get back to work. :-) I'll let the rest of the Internet debate it now... - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHoVwyq1pz9mNUZTMRAt9lAJ9XrbgGYOwWuOpWnhzCZW34z8DfKwCgjJrl RrAXym6y9oSywKv9w5gHtVg= =zdWX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
