I got a better idea... I would like to patent a system where it passes through three devices:
The first device would scan for viruses. The second device would scan for anything that is not considered a virus but may as well be one. The third device would filter out silly Internet arguments. To ensure the uniqueness of the device, I would probably add a fourth pass that would provide "user education" to the person who sent the e-mail. This "education" would come in the form of a clue-by-four, a meeting with the board of education, or a swing of the clue bat. - Colin security curmudgeon wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > : It bears repeating that this is not about prior art in AV scanning, but > : rather, doing so on a gateway device (e.g. appliance) which Trend Micro > : was the first to do -- hence the patent. > > 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? > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > _______________________________________________ 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.
