Mark Delany most definitely wrote: > Did the claimants vacuum up the IP of the now defunct Goodmail? Reads > somewhat similar to what they were once trying to sell. Particularly > the "contractual" obligations of the senders.
Goodmail indeed sold its patent portfolio, but none of the three patents asserted is related to Goodmail's intellectual property. Ironically, Gmail placed Steve's original message in my spam folder. DTD On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Mark Delany <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05Dec17, Steve Atkins allegedly wrote: > > > > I thought this might be of interest to DKIM implementers. > > > The Asserted Patents share a common specification. > > Did the claimants vacuum up the IP of the now defunct Goodmail? Reads > somewhat similar to what they were once trying to sell. Particularly > the "contractual" obligations of the senders. > > From what I can glean, the plan is to digitally sign the email along > the lines of S/MIME (PKI and CAs are referred to extensively and > exclusively) and the sender include a "pledge" about the contents such > as "no more than 5 recipients will get this email". Recipients can act > on the pledge in the knowledge that senders apparently won't lie in > their pledge. Or if they do lie something will happen to them - > exactly what or how is not specified. > > How the pledge is validated across the whole of Internet email is > undefined as is what to do to the sender if the pledge is known to be > a lie. > > There are no references to DNS, no reference to how they determine > identical mail (canonicalization), no reference to S/MIME or DKIM in > any of their filings. > > I guess the "pledge" on the part of the sender is vaguely novel but > there is no equivalent in DKIM as far as I recall. Maybe the vendors > you refer to have features that emulates pledges when sending email? > > For moral equivalence, the Date: header is a pledge as to when the > email was composed/sent and Content-Type: is a pledge as to how the > MIME part has been encoded so the novelty is not even that there are > pledges in the email, just the nature of the pledge. > > To me they seem to have invented a new mail header. > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html >
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
