nt: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion Functionality
>
>
> Didn't think of that one. I guess this goes to the design of
> the system
> though, and the fact that some clearly haven't considered the loopi
I also think that one needs to examine the purpose of the email system
before using this or any other anti-spam technique.
I think it works well for specific organizations. For example, I found out
about the product because I tried to contact one of
my vendors and was presented with the need for
Didn't think of that one. I guess this goes to the design of the system
though, and the fact that some clearly haven't considered the looping
potential.
Matt
Keith Anderson wrote:
I love challenge-response systems. They create revenue opportunities for
knowledgable IT professionals, and the
+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Anderson
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 05:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion Functionality
I love challenge-respons
I love challenge-response systems. They create revenue opportunities for
knowledgable IT professionals, and they make sure there isn't any unused
bandwidth, especially when two challenge-response systems somehow lose track
of each other and send millions of emails back and forth between each oth
&M Systems Software, Inc.
600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott
Scott:
>> it would require either [1] paying royalties to the guy that bought the
patent, or [2] challenging the patent. <<
Actually - NO.
The preferred (3rd) option is to obtain a limited, but FREE license (or a
$1.00 or other minimal fee) license to use the patented methods. The terms
of t
Oh forgot to add:
http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/prior_art.html -- prior work on c/r.
Burzin
At 02:29 PM 12/5/2003, you wrote:
But, the ultimate challenge is the patent. That means that it would
require either [1] paying royalties to the guy that bought the patent, or
[2] challenging the pa
es "sofware" patents
turn out to be legit.)
Best Regards
Andy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Burzin Sumariwalla
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 04:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion Functionalit
e: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 03:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion
Patent Number?
6,199,102. To view it, you can go to
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm and enter "6,199,102" there.
For a bit of background, you can go to
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/columnists/tech_test_drive/5565050.htm
ms may be much narrower) than the casual r
I didn't know that concept was patented. It seems pretty old to me-- halt
who goes there?
Anyway I did some research, and here's what I found:
Here are some links... read if you are interested:
http://www.cleanmymailbox.com/mailblocks.html-- links to patent
infringement issue
http://www.geocit
sage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 03:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion Functionality
>Sorry - I really don't see why this is not a highly desirable feature
>and how th
la
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Lion Functionality
>
> Don't worry Kami and others...
>
> Even if I implemented something similar, I never envisioned deploying it
> domain-wide or reling
Sorry - I really don't see why this is not a highly desirable feature and
how this would create "spam" that the "WARN" or "BOUNCE" action don't
generate already!?
It doesn't create more spam than BOUNCE -- it creates the exact same
amount. But that's the problem. Instead of 1,000 E-mails to you
Combined with a weighting scheme it IS a worthwhile option.
Currently, our option are "BOUNCE" (or now that ridiculous renamed version
of the same action) - which means a FALSE positive will receive a notice and
now has to contact us "manually" to address the false positive status.
Or we "DELETE
Don't worry Kami and others...
Even if I implemented something similar, I never envisioned deploying it
domain-wide or reling upon it
as a single test. Instead I envisioned deploying it for selected
users-- I wouldn't have even asked if a key user hadn't
requested this.
In our organization, t
>Upon receipt of incoming email it checks to see if the sender is
>authorized. If the sender is authorized, the message is passed along
>to the intended reciepients.
PLEASE RECONSIDER..
Challenge response systems are killing us ..
Your users will lose a lot of email specially if they shop onl
Is anyone familiar with a product called Spam Lion. It's too pricey for
my organization, but it seems to do the following:
Upon receipt of incoming email it checks to see if the sender is
authorized. If the sender is authorized, the message is passed along to
the intended reciepients. If th
19 matches
Mail list logo
