Slashdot Mirror


E-Mail Forwarding Patented, PTO Sued

David Lee Ludwig writes "Earlier today, I ran across an article regarding an issued patent on e-mail forwarding. According to the president of the holding company, they're interested in making the technology open-source, however I fail to see where the innovation is. The full text of the patent (6427164) is available online." Sadly, we've run altogether too many patent stories of late. In related news, the PTO has been sued to stop shredding the original documents related to the patents. Read on for more on that... mgarraha writes "A Washington Post article reports that the National Intellectual Property Researchers Association is suing the US Patent and Trademark Office to stop them from destroying their archive of paper documents. NIPRA claims that PTO's new patent database is not good enough to go completely paperless. PTO had planned to begin disposal today, but they are still negotiating with the group that will take the paper off their hands."

165 comments

  1. Postfix lets you do this by EvilStein · · Score: 1, Redundant

    ....and it has for as long as I can remember.

    Stupid patents...geez.

    1. Re:Postfix lets you do this by srw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you read the patent? The patent refers to a system where a mailserver which receives an email for an address no longer in use checks with _another_ server to determine the new address. Does Postfix do this? It doesn't seem all that useful to me, and possibly exploitable. (...my old scott.walde@sasknet.sk.ca doesn't work anymore. What's to stop someone else from registering a forward for that address to their own address and diverting mail that was intended for me. I haven't read the patent all the way through, so forgive me if they have thought of this.)

    2. Re:Postfix lets you do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you read the patent?

      Doesn't the post office hold prior art on this. They call it 'forwarding address' or something like that. Very innovative.

    3. Re:Postfix lets you do this by shyster · · Score: 2
      Have you read the patent? The patent refers to a system where a mailserver which receives an email for an address no longer in use checks with _another_ server to determine the new address. Does Postfix do this? It doesn't seem all that useful to me, and possibly exploitable. (...my old scott.walde@sasknet.sk.ca doesn't work anymore. What's to stop someone else from registering a forward for that address to their own address and diverting mail that was intended for me. I haven't read the patent all the way through, so forgive me if they have thought of this.

      I would guess that you'd only be able to register the 2 email addresses while you still had access to both (to prove ownership...or at least access).

    4. Re:Postfix lets you do this by SquierStrat · · Score: 2

      Actually...I've had several ISPs do this very thing for me on several occasions.

      --
      Derek Greene
    5. Re:Postfix lets you do this by MadAhab · · Score: 2

      yes, they do, but you forgot the magic words that make anything patentable: "on a computer"

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    6. Re:Postfix lets you do this by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Since when can you do Email without a computer, anyway?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Postfix lets you do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the days that email is retrievable and creatable via telephone.

  2. They are almost saints by jukal · · Score: 5, Funny
    "All the software will be free and hopefully, open-source. Only the registration will be charged, and given the scale that we anticipate, we're looking at less than US$20 per year, with substantial discounts for students, etc."

    Now we have someone to continue Mother Teresa's work!

    1. Re:They are almost saints by norculf · · Score: 0

      As a student, I sure am looking forward to getting a substantial discount from that hefty $20 registration fee.

      If only Microsoft had such fair pricing. They wouldn't have to ban product keys because everyone would just buy teh damn software.

  3. Stupid patents by sheepab · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Hyperlinks....email fowarding.....damnit Im going to patent the number 1, then you'll all owe me money!

    1. Re:Stupid patents by leviramsey · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Im going to patent the number 1, then you'll all owe me money!

      I'm going to patent addition and negation. Then both of us can charge royalties to users of all integers!

    2. Re:Stupid patents by Lshmael · · Score: 1

      Someone is going to patent email, or (God forbid!) posting, and then we are all going to be screwed.

    3. Re:Stupid patents by kubrick · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yeah, and I'm going to patent the idea of making stupid jokes about patenting something bleedingly obvious on Slashdot every time the editors post a story like this.

      Give it a rest, people.

      *PLONK*

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    4. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I'll owe you royalties every time I subtract the royalties I owe you from my checking account balance... or actually, my bank will, since I never balance my checkbook. Phew -barely avoided an infinite loop.

    5. Re:Stupid patents by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, it's already been done :-), by Microsoft, of course.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:Stupid patents by phunhippy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, and I'm going to patent the idea of making stupid jokes about patenting something bleedingly obvious on Slashdot every time the editors post a story like this

      Yeah umm..I think the trolls have PRIOR ART on that one :)

    7. Re:Stupid patents by helmutjd · · Score: 1

      Patent the number 1?

      Dammit, then we won't be able to take a leak without...

      Oh, wait... never mind...

    8. Re:Stupid patents by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      However your bank will charge you a dramatically inflated "Royalty Fee" to cover their costs of doing business....

      That's why this patent is sheer genius. Even if I license it at $0.01 per thousand uses, that's infinite uses (since 1000 is an integer, the act of determining how much you owe me is a use!)

    9. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather patent one method for doing a BSD install from a root shell...think that'd fly?

    10. Re:Stupid patents by tconnors · · Score: 1

      Give it a rest, people.

      *PLONK*


      Wow! There is a killfile function on slashdot?! Show me where it is! ;)

    11. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allright, Derek Smart, what are you doing on slashdot? alt.games.bc3000ad got to hostile? Bill and others are getting lonely over there. Go back.

    12. Re:Stupid patents by dossen · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed the little round thing on the header of the posts? Using that you can mark people as your foes. Then you change your preferences to award foes a negative bonus score. And there you have it... a killfile.
      for more info refer to the faq.

    13. Re:Stupid patents by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna patent the process of obtaining a patent.

      boo-ya

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    14. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made him/her/it a foe -- that's the best I could do :)

      (Posting anonymously, as it's offtopic)

    15. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art won't stop anyone getting a patent... after all, see one-click shopping et. al. :)

    16. Re:Stupid patents by Manitcor · · Score: 1

      I think im gonan skip reading patent stories any longer, evey time the threads are almost identical to the last time there was some obscene patent.

      How droll, can't you guys be more orignal or just keep your extremely redundant posts to yourselfs.

      (Sorry its one of those days for me ;-)

      --
      "Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
    17. Re:Stupid patents by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      I think someone already did patent posting... wasn't there an article about a patent on HTML forms a while back?

    18. Re:Stupid patents by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Someone is going to patent email

      Why not just patent spam. There is enough of it to still make a lot of money. You are not going to annoy nearly as many people. And if you are actually able to collect all the money you will be made a hero.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    19. Re:Stupid patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So banks will essentially stop doing math and just leave you a random number of money.

  4. Reform? by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1

    If the PTO procedures were overhauled tomorrow, would the patents already issued still drag the rate of advance in the tech industry to a halt?

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  5. I've said it before and I'll say it again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intellectual property among a world full of idiots just doesn't work.

  6. Put this patent to good use by tRoll+with+Butter · · Score: 1

    Find some way to use it to sue spammers!

    --

    ---
    Siggy, siggy, siggy, can't you see? Sometimes your puns just irritate me.
    1. Re:Put this patent to good use by Lshmael · · Score: 1

      I do not think that would work, as this is "email forwarding," which concerns mostly people changing their email addresses when they close down old accounts or stop checking them.

  7. patents like this suck by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 1

    it's late and I'm high so I can't really think of anything else to say.

    but that shit's crazy. forwarding? did I read that right? what kind of insane bullshit is that?

    --

    --
    pants ahoy
    1. Re:patents like this suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not patenting the kind of email forwarding you're thinking of, read the fucking article.

    2. Re:patents like this suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post inspired this Because I got High, Slashdot-style

      I hope you're happy. ;)

    3. Re:patents like this suck by Chexsum · · Score: 0

      Heh, how lame! :\

      --
      Pixels keep you awake!
  8. More Slashdot sensationalism by khym · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes, software patents are bad, but this one isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be. Here's what's patented:
    1. User sends out email to an innactive/delted account.
    2. Mail gets bounced back to user.
    3. User's email-agent notices the bounce is of a certain type, so it connects to a central machine and asks "for non-working address foo@bar.com, give me an active address for the same perrson"
    4. Email-agent forward the bounced mail to that active adress.
    So it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.
    --
    Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by marko123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Without going into all the IP crap, this kind of makes sense in the days of free email accounts with limited quotas.

      However, what would be even better is if Hotmail et. al provided you with an overflow email address that gets your hotmail mail when your quota is full.

      The ability to get your old/dead mail accounts forwarded to a new account is OK, but a quiet word to your SA in the job you are leaving is cheaper :)

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    2. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by eNonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >So it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.

      The procedure you describe is traditional forwarding on some systems. For example, I once had a free GNN account (Global Network Navigator, AOL's "internet connection only" service that went under quickly). When GNN closed house, I was given the option to have everything forwarded to AOL for a period of time. All mail sent to me@gnn.com was forwarded to myotherID@aol.com. All web traffic destined to members.gnn.com/me was forwarded to members.aol.com/myotherID.

      So, "forwarding" can indeed mean what this patent applies to. Not forwarding as in "Fwd:" but forwarding as in automatic redirection of email to a different address; just like the USPS calls it "forwarding" when you move and they send your mail to your new home. Not everyone calls it aliasing, and in fact there are many webhosting companies out there right now who offer "email forwarding" which does exactly this.

      And yes, this patent sucks.

    3. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by MisterBlister · · Score: 2
      However, what would be even better is if Hotmail et. al provided you with an overflow email address that gets your hotmail mail when your quota is full.

      Yeah but then why would you register for their premium service? It actually almost seems like they sign you up to spam lists of purpose just to fill up your mailbox and get you over the small quota they have so you'll upgrade to premium... For kicks, create a hotmail account, in your preferences don't set it to sign up to any mailing lists...Wait a week and login, it will be flooded with spam (much of which the 'bulk/spam email detector' missed) even if your userid is something random and unguessable.

      I'm not singling out Hotmail on this either, Yahoo is the same way and I suspect other free email places are too though I've only used Hotmail and Yahoo myself.

    4. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, this is NOT an innovation, it is merely an extension of what many people do already. My e-mail for the university of kansas has changed, but the old addresses were kept active and "forwarded" to my new address, essentially doing the same thing. the central server being my Universitys e-mail server, and the new address my new address. To move this system from the original institution is no change in technology, just a step in the same direction, it accomplishes the same goal in a slightly different way. It would be like patenting a joystick with 12 AXIS control, simply because you were the first to do it, then claiming that all controllers with 12 axis were under your patent, regardless of design.

      But alas, many of this kind of patent is in force today, especially in the computer industry, simply because of the money it takes to challenge the patents.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    5. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by khym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So far as I'm aware, traditional forwarding is done by the system the email was sent to. In the patented method, it is done by the user's mail agent; all the system the email was originally sent to does is bounce it back to the sender.

      --
      Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    6. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The procedure you describe is traditional forwarding on some systems.

      No it isn't.

      Traditional email forwarding works completely transparently to the client. You send your message, and it's delivered. The *server* handles any forwarding, *nothing* is returned to your client.

      The patented method is *different* - in that, the email server knows nothing about the forwarding address, it just bounces the undeliverable mail. The client then (automatically) discovers an address to forward to, from a different server.

      The only similarity is that the forwarding is automatic; the implementations are entirely different.

      The patent still sucks, though.

      Cheers,

      Tim

    7. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Com2Kid · · Score: 3, Informative

      For kicks, create a hotmail account, in your preferences don't set it to sign up to any mailing lists...Wait a week and login, it will be flooded with spam (much of which the 'bulk/spam email detector' missed) even if your userid is something random and unguessable.


      my hotmail account (hey hey hey backoff, it came with the damn MSIM messenger account!!! Err, wait, you mean that isn't any better? Oh darn. . . :-D ) has received all of four or five pieces of e-mail.

      Ever.

      Period.

      The first one the customary "welcome to hotmail.com" e-mail, and the rest of them asking me to upgrade to the premium service.

      Not one piece of spam.

      Ever.

      So nyah! (well over a month to!)

    8. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by krogoth · · Score: 2

      So nyah! (well over a month to!)
      Writer looking for greeting card publisher Inquire Within [netfirms.com].


      You should spend less time on your sig and more time on your spelling.

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    9. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      So nyah! (well over a month to!)

      Actually that is a grammatical issue, need to boot the 'to', and in fact in should have read

      "and it has been well over a month!"

      You know what, screw it, I am changing it to POET, that way nobody can bitch about my grammer/spelling.

    10. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Help, my word, Microsoft employees are moderating up my comment! AAAH!!! I can feel the oncoming Karma slaughter approach!! AAAH!

      (informative? how the holy fucking hell is it informative? Interesting, maaaybe, underrated, sure I, err, gueees, but informative??? I did not provide any information at all!)

    11. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Greg+Lindahl · · Score: 2


      How carefully did you read the patent? Your description doesn't match Claim 1. sendmail+NIS aliases does match claim 1 exactly. The server does the forwarding, not the client.

    12. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by wdr1 · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      While I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of patenting alogrithms, while they're legal, this really isn't an abusive of the system. It's not super-complicated, but then not every patent needs to be.

      I wouldn't mind these Editor Soapbox issues nearly as much if Timothy at least understood what he was posting half the time.

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    13. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by John+Miles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For kicks, create a hotmail account, in your preferences don't set it to sign up to any mailing lists...Wait a week and login, it will be flooded with spam (much of which the 'bulk/spam email detector' missed) even if your userid is something random and unguessable.

      They don't sign you up for spam lists. Try creating your Hotmail account name with a random-sounding combination of several letters that don't spell any valid English words or proper names and numbers that don't look like a year in the 20th century. As long as the address is kept private, it won't be spammed.

      "aimfiz69105" at hotmail.com has received zero spams in the past couple of years.
      "rezrov" at hotmail.com has received about 300 spams since it was created last week.

      My guess is that the problem is that Hotmail and other mail providers are apparently stupid enough to accept incoming mail with 300,000,000 recipients in the header. I can't think of any other reason why "rezrov" would get buried in spam almost instantly while "aimfiz69105" never gets any.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    14. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It actually almost seems like they sign you up to spam lists of purpose just to fill up your mailbox and get you over the small quota they have so you'll upgrade to premium...
      In other words:

      1. Sign up for hundreds of Hotmail accounts
      2. Wait for the spam to roll in, consuming megs of space per account
      3. Check every Hotmail account every 29 days to keep it alive
      4. ???
      5. Bankrupt Microsoft!!!
    15. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by eNonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      My guess is that the problem is that Hotmail and other mail providers are apparently stupid enough to accept incoming mail with 300,000,000 recipients in the header. I can't think of any other reason why "rezrov" would get buried in spam almost instantly while "aimfiz69105" never gets any.
      The problem is that "rezrov" is a shorter userid than "aimfiz69105," and there's probably a rezrov@ other domains aside from hotmail.com (like aol.com, or yahoo.com). That's probably about it.

      The classic dictionary attack - sending mail to ajones@, bjones@, cjones@ - has evolved somewhat. These days, some spammers take every valid @aol.com address and try to mail it @hotmail.com. They take every valid @hotmail.com address and try to mail it @yahoo.com. Reason being, a substantial number of people carry the same username across services. If JimBob4494@aol.com creates a Hotmail account, it's likely to be jimbob4494@hotmail.com. If joeuser555@hotmail.com signs up for Yahoo! Mail, he's likely to create joeuser555@yahoo.com.

      So, what's more likely in the case of rezrov {at} hotmail {dot} com is that there's a valid user with the address rezrov@aol.com or rezrov@yahoo.com. So one spammer decided to try that particular user portion @hotmail.com, it didn't bounce, and now you're on tens if not hundreds of lists. Meanwhile, there was never a aimfiz69105@aol.com, or a aimfiz69105@yahoo.com, etc so that address @hotmail doesn't get any spam.

      Sucks, eh?

      My Hotmail/Yahoo account method has been spamproof so far:

      Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket, and use its serial number as your free webmail account username. Guaranteed no spam, ever.

      Right now I'm looking at a dollar bill whose serial number is J57097854N (I need to go put it into WheresGeorge :) and that would make a perfect Hotmail or Yahoo account.
    16. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Chexsum · · Score: 0

      You dont need to swear, it is partially informative. The reason its partially informative is the bug with hotmail was fixed so signing up now doesnt allow spammers to find out your email address.

      You used to be able to get a list of a lot of usernames via a bug in either messenger or hotmail (or both) and these lists are still known of course.

      Its too bad that hotmail dont filter known spammers but theres probably legal issues behind mass-blocking the known spammers. :\

      --
      Pixels keep you awake!
    17. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Twylite · · Score: 5, Informative

      The SMTP protocol includes two 3xx response codes; one is "address not local, forward to remote@address" (client agent must handle forwarding), the other is "address not local, will forward to remote@address" (server will do the forwarding).

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
    18. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by p0ppe · · Score: 1

      The reason is that the spammers have robots generating all possible usernames @ hotmail.com. Shorter usernames are therefore going to recieve more spam as the robots only generate usernames up to a certain length.

      --


      "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
    19. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      The Hotmail account I created specifically to register for MSN Messenger would collect spam. I never gave it out as my email address, and the last time I tried to check it, Hotmail wanted me to re-activate the account because I haven't used it for so long. (I didn't bother.) Funny thing is, the email address was something along the lines of "nospamplease@hotmail.com". Did they just happen to guess that?

    20. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
      aimfiz69105" at hotmail.com has received zero spams in the past couple of years.
      "rezrov" at hotmail.com has received about 300 spams since it was created last week.

      ibtgsrq@hotmail was created over 6 months ago. It regulary receives over 40 email spams a day despite having never signed up for anything, never opted for anything and never been published.

      It only takes one example to expose the flaw in your argument and I'm afriad thats it.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    21. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by SquierStrat · · Score: 2

      Except that it has been done before. Many Many times before.

      --
      Derek Greene
    22. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And how exactly non-obvious invention is it? How many minutes it would take for any e-mail systems veteran to come up with the answer to the question "How do I forward mail to someone who moved from one system to another without involving the original server? We have custom client you can change, btw...". 1 minute? 5? It sure did not take me any longer. And I was asked this question by a client years back. News flash! There are already centralized mail directories on the net using LDAP! BigFoot anyone? Yahoo? People Find? If someone wants this useless service, one could theoretically set up an LDAP directory with name, old and new email address and get any EXISTING client with LDAP support (netscape, outlook, eudora etc etc) to look up (although not automatically - I am sure the 5 mouse clicks now required can be programmed by any kid with Visual Basic). This would require of course for people to update their entires on this LDAP server and some sort of authentication/billing system but this is really some PHP trivia. OBVIOUS, INEVITABLE AND NOT VERY PRACTICAL SOLUTION to this silly question (my client decided it was too much hassle - and I agreed).

      This proves one thing: UPO certainly does NOT do ANY peer or expert review on the patents. They just make sure that you have your fees in order and the forms are properly filled. It is truly a travesty.

    23. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's the auto-spam function! Since that's who all it would be that would use it.

      "Damn, that account gets too much spam, I'll just get rid of it and make another"... not to worry, thanks to these folks the spammers will be automatically get your new address!

    24. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by alexburke · · Score: 5, Funny

      "aimfiz69105" at hotmail.com has received zero spams in the past couple of years.

      Until about three minutes after you hit "Submit" and smacked your forehead. :P

    25. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Informative

      this deals with an INACTIVE address
      read claim 12
      12. A method of automatically resending an electronic message originally sent to a receiving user at a destination address that is now invalid to a new address for the receiving user, wherein the new address has been registered with an address server, the method comprising the steps of:

      a) creating an electronic message on a computer system, the electronic message having a first destination address;

      b) sending the electronic message to a first server;

      c) sending the electronic message from the first server to a second server associated with the destination address;

      d) determining in the second server that the destination address is not valid; and thereafter

      e) automatically sending a query to the address server to determine a new address associated with the destination address, wherein the address server stores the destination address in association with the new address;

      f) returning the new address; and thereafter

      g) automatically sending the electronic message to the new address.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    26. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      Its too bad that hotmail dont filter known spammers but theres probably legal issues behind mass-blocking the known spammers. :\

      Hotmail does have a junk mail filter. it is not very good, but it does catch alot of junk mail.

      --

    27. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      hotmail starts bouncing the messages once you reach your 1 meg quota unless you pay for premium service.

    28. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by rew · · Score: 2

      Trust me: It won't work.

      Sometimes people send spams out with the "from" inside one of my domains. I get to see all the bounces. Trust me, there are too many of them to allow automatic detection of them all.It's even harder to find the original destination from the bounce.

      On the other hand, it is hard to get/keep the database populated: you need cooperation of the people who "move". If I know an address is going to stop working I can almost always get to install a forward.

      Now suppose this works, and my friends keep on mailing me on my old address, there is noone who will notice that they are using the old address until someone else grabs that address.

      For example, I could stop paying for say "Roger@Wolff.net", and that frees up that address for anybody to grab it. So it silently keeps on working until the second that someone else grabs my old email address, and the bounces stop coming....

      Roger.

    29. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Gossy · · Score: 2

      Is this something you'd particularily want though?

      Very often people change email addresses so they're on one that the spammers don't have yet. Anyone you want to talk to can just send an email out saying you're changing your email address.

      Sure, people who get lots of emails from people they don't know might find it desirable, but I'm sure more often than not people with new email addresses don't want the spam from their old one flooding into their nice new account.

    30. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent doesn't necissarily say that, they say it's a patent for both ways.

    31. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hotmails junk filter has gotten considerably worse since they started trying to charge for a level of service.

      The last time I logged into my hotmail account there was probably 1000 spam messages.

      I think 1 email was actually for me.

      (I do have other address')

    32. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      Just remember to keep the dollar in your junk drawer, not your wallet :D

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    33. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Right now I'm looking at a dollar bill whose serial number is J57097854N (I need to go put it into WheresGeorge :) and that would make a perfect Hotmail or Yahoo account.

      Until someone pulls the Where's George database and spams it :-p

    34. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      Whoever wrote the article for /. probably should have included a little more detail. Knowing the audience here, very few are going to read the article before jerking their knees.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    35. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the U.S. Postal Service have [url=http://www.usps.com/ncsc/products/ancillary.h tm]prior art[/url]?

    36. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't the U.S. Postal Service have prior art?

      Gotta remember to preview. (Say what you like about UBB, at least it lets you edit your mistakes!)

    37. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by WEFUNK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, software patents are bad, but this one isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be .... it doesn't come anywhere near patenting traditional email forwarding.

      I think this type of patent is actually much worse than the kind that might have allowed traditional email forwarding to be patented. This patent is very typical of what makes most software patents so bad. The vast majority of software patents that make it to the front page of slashdot seem to have the exact same "M.O." or recipe. Most seem to describe obvious examples of using a database to store information, relate information, and then perform an automated action based on the linked information.

      None of the component actions are ever really innovative or are even claimed to be (forwarding e-mail for instance). Instead, these patents claim that by using a database to automate a common or obvious process they are proposing a new and innovative solution. Other bad patents simply claim that using networks or the internet with existing processes achieves the same goal.

      I think the examiners wrongly treat these patents like non-software patents that combine two or more existing elements or technologies in a new way that produces unobvious results. The difference is that software patents whose main innovation is the use of a database (or a network) are not only comprised of existing and obvious elements but they are also being combined in an existing and very obvious way. Databases are specifically designed to store and relate information and to allow for automated actions to be performed. Pre-existing elements using a pre-existing architecture or application should not so easily be classified as either novel or unobvious.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    38. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Soul+Brother+#1 · · Score: 1
      I can't think of any other reason why "rezrov" would get buried in spam almost instantly while "aimfiz69105" never gets any.

      Have you tried to KREBF your REZROV account?

      Or maybe you BLORBed your AIMFIZ account, to protect it from spam...

      Somebody stop me...

      -Will

      --
      All unfair meta-mods are now being meta-meta-modded as retarded.
    39. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only about 8 billion possible 7 letter email addresses, so it would take about 6 months to try all of them at a rate of about 500 tries per second. I heard recently that big email providers get 100 of these random test emails for every one real email, so that sounds reasonable.

    40. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I think it may depend on when you initiated the hotmail account, too. Mine is about four years old, and got tons of spam from day one. (The address has NEVER been posted anywhere, and the username is two longish words smucked together, not something a straight-up dictionary attack would readily discover.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    41. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      Thats just it though, even though the address is INACTIVE, the idea is the same. my old address was technically "inactive" as well. Nothing was stored, or re-sent via that address. It had to look up the new address and get forwarded. It was... simply forwarding. This address simply because it would work on a broader scale is no different in concept. Just because it would only work with users that had registered it in fact would be harder to implement since the e-mail client would have to look up, or the user trying to e-mail the person would have to go to a web page, to find out where the new e-mail was at. So even though this is a step in the same general direction it in many ways would require some more effort on the part of the e-mail software and or the user to even work as effeciently as what my college did. the college forwarded e-mails for 6 months, plenty of time for everyone who wanted to talk to me to get my new address. The IDEA is not new, it probably has been looked at by many an enterprising entrepenuer and discarded as simply being unfeasible without support from microsoft or some other very large software organization that could set the standard. They seem to be proposing this as a service, 20 dollars a month to get your e-mail re-assigned, but how will e-mail software know to re-assign? It is not an invention. It is merely an extended idea of something that has already existed.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    42. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use J57097854N. That's my dog's Hotmail account that he derived from deviding the last harmonic convergence's meridian latitude phase by Hoyt Wilhelm's lifetime balk per nine innings average.

    43. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by klparrot · · Score: 1
      Just because something seems "obvious" or "inevitable" doesn't mean it can't be patented.

      If it's "obvious", there should be prior use, then it can't be patented.

      And it's "inevitable" that, for example, we will have faster processors in the future, yet they will be patented, and why not?

      The patent must not be too broad, and from the sounds of it, this patent doesn't cover all email forwarding, so it's probably a reasonable patent, if there has been no prior use.

    44. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Exactly. Let's go back the original justification for patents: to provide an incentive to invest in developing original new ideas which would otherwise lack profitability because they're easy for competitors to replicate once developed. This in turn supposedly provides society with inventions, like new drugs, that it otherwise wouldn't have been profitable to research and bring to market.

      So... this "innovation" certainly is easy to replicate, but as for originality - WTF? Are the PTO seriously trying to tell us that this "innovation" is so original that, if it hadn't been for patent incentives, no-one else would have thought of it?

    45. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by MarkPinTx · · Score: 1

      There is no distinction to be made between software and non-software patents. Either an invention is obvious or it is not. You are arguing a higher state of knowledge and skill in the art in software, which may be the case. If that higher standard applies perhaps it is obvious.

      You also have the benefit of hindsight.

      Overall, the article was sensationalistic and the original post is correct.

      --
      In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey . . .
    46. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by WEFUNK · · Score: 2

      You're right, in principle there should be no real distinction between what is obvious in software vs. non-software patents. The distinction that I've tried to make is only that *in practice* software generally uses fairly standard or derivative architectures that can (and are intended to be) applied to a wide variety of elements and processes. Also, that examiners actually appear to hold software patents to a lower standard by allowing essentially the exact same technology to be patented over and over again, just for different applications. It's like patenting the invention of a car and then someone else patenting the use your car on dirt roads and someone else patenting the use of your car on asphalt when your obvious intention was that a car could be used anywhere.

      As long as a fairly typical architecture is used, even a very novel configuration of software elements should not generally be considered unobvious unless perhaps existing features are used in a particularly novel way and/or if the results achieved are quite unexpected. Even then, my biggest concern with software patents is that they seem to be unusually broad compared to non-software patents and are much closer to patenting ideas and applications than inventions and embodiments.

      I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    47. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      And how the fuck can the evil patentor not be stymied by the most excellent patent office technically-aware clerk who says: "this is so obvious to any programmer" unless either said clerk was the one who worked on the one-click or aforementioned evil patentor stuffed the patent application envelope with a money order for $1,000 drawn to CASH?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    48. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are terribly wrong. Patents are great sacrifices by society and a great priviledge to the inventor of significant and measurable advances to human kind's knowledge and capabilities. At least that what patent is supposed to mean. Many laborious years of research and experimentation are to be offset by granting this limited monopoly as a reward to the inventor. Saying that if a chemist discovers a new element you are therefore entitled to run and patent every combination possible of other known elements with the one just discovered is the same mentality the cybersquatters have. Just register every permutation of word "sex" and wait to extort cash from all porn outfits slow to move, no? Obvious and inevitable automatically disqualifies the patent. "Faster processors" in the future says nothing about the actual mechanics of making them faster. If the said mechanics come to mind of every electronics student, they are not innovation and this great sacrifice by the society otherwise known as patent should not be granted to the first clown that runs with the forms into the US patent office.

    49. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by ibbey · · Score: 2

      Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

      Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.

      I am all for revising the patent system. There are numerous problems with it, and "obvious" patents are certainly one of them. But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning. The test of obviousness should be the novelty of the overall task, not the steps taken to get there. On that ground, this seems to me to be a sound patent.

    50. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by ibbey · · Score: 2

      I do admit to having the benefit of hindsight - I certainly hadn't thought of this "idea" before - but hindsight only addresses novelty, not obviousness. If you had asked me (or better yet, someone with more experience in the art of database architecturing and e-mail) to come up with half a dozen ways of forwarding e-mail then I have no doubt I would have considered something close to their method in a matter of minutes. Their first claim covers what is clearly and obviously one of only a very finite number of ways you can do this using standard methods.

      In reality, many patents are obvious. It doesn't matter whether you could have thought of the same thing had you been asked. You weren't & you didn't. Legally, that's irrelevant. (see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/# whatpat for the legal definition of obvious).

      I'll concede, though, that patents like this piss me off too. Not because they're invalid, but because-- you're right-- it's obvious. I wish I'd thought of it first, then I'd be making that $20 a year from everyone who's ever changed ISPs.

    51. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      *cough*

      You just published it. :)

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    52. Re:More Slashdot sensationalism by WEFUNK · · Score: 2

      Umm... If this patent is so obvious, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

      You're confusing novelty and obviousness. According the USPTO definition it is very possible that no one has ever thought of an invention but that it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art and therefore unpatentable.

      Yes, the specific steps taken to implement this technology are simple. But, why should that prevent getting a patent? Say I invent a new mousetrap, the basic compopnents (levers, springs) have been used elsewhere, but I combine them into a new & unique design. By your reasoning, I should not be eligible for a patent.

      No, by my reasoning you should be eligible for a patent. My argument is that many software patents are granted to inventions that combine existing components into non-novel and/or non-obvious configurations, such as a standard software architecture or model. These should not be granted anything but possibly very narrow patents on the particular implementation.

      But calling a patent obvious just because it uses obvious technologies in novel ways is very flawed reasoning.

      I agree, but that was never my argument. For example, an obvious change to a communications technology is to replace a wireless system with a wired one. This might be a novel idea in that no one has ever done this, but it would be an obvious variation to any electrical engineer. Remember also that patent examiners only generally consider published prior art. Many obvious inventions are things that have been considered but have never been published in scientific literature or patent documents. For instance, when developing an application, a team will consider multiple possible architectures (wired vs. wireless, local client vs. remote server, etc.) but will proceed with and document only one or two variations. The other versions they throw out may have been obvious and no longer novel, but since they have not been published they are not considered prior art. However, an experienced examiner should be able to recognize that a novel (i.e., no prior art) invention, might merely be a variation of existing system that should have been obvious to one skilled in the art. For a variety of reasons, this doesn't seem to happen as often as it should.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
  9. Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? by myov · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah Brain, but how are we going to patent the Earth?

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    1. Re:Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now you've put a plot idea in my head for a show involving a Genesis Torpedo and God coming down to claim prior art.

      Brain: "With this Genesis Torpedo, we'll create life on a planet and then patent the process. Naturally, the patent will cover Earth as well."

      Pinky: "Egads Brain, that's brilliant!"

  10. Ouch by Carpet+Filter · · Score: 0
    What about prior art? Have not people been using auto e-mail forwarders for a long time? How can a company simply decide to claim an idea as its own if it is public domain?

    This is somewhat disturbing, as are other patent stories I've read in the past.

  11. So.... by k0ala · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder just who is going to get the patent on patenting things, and then satrt suing everyone? Or did someone already get that too? Leave it to the lawyers... We already know IBM beat you to it...

    US Patent on Using the Bathroom by IBM

    --
    "Hollowpoints: When you care enough to send the very best."
    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but I believe there are many patented processes used by organizations that specialize in patent searches... their goal is to make is so you can't search for patents to reference in your patent without using their patented material... it's almost what the parent messages suggests with "get the patent on patenting things". I think there are also some patented semi-automatic patent generators.

  12. This reminds me... by alonlaudon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The famous Onion article about MS patenting the numbers one and zero:

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpaten ts .html

  13. Canada Post offers a similar regular mail service by jpt.d · · Score: 3, Informative

    Canada Post (along with probably every other post office type company) provides a change of address you can purchase which will redirect your mail for a specified period of time for a fee. It is the exact same thing as what I believe they are trying to do, only it is redirected a lot later in the process of delivery (after the bounce). Is this what we call prior art?

    --
    What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
  14. Wrong link... by alonlaudon · · Score: 1

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents .html

  15. on next.... by slayer99 · · Score: 2, Funny


    * Patent on automatic forwarding from URL to another

    * Patent on "Out of Office" autoreplies

    Actually, I wouldn't mind this last one. Hopefully people would stop using them.

    Mart.

    --
    Martin Brooks / Slayer99 #linux / UIN 2178117
  16. From my reading by flonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From my reading of the press release, they're looking to start a registry for old email address to new email address translation, in order to handle bounce messages more cleanly.

    Doesn't seem very useful to me. Just adds another layer on top of SMTP that fits a tiny niche. And this layer is dependent on some random startup still being in business.

    Maybe some kind of distributed delivery system, with encryption of bounced messages...

    OK, here's my solution to their problem. All email is signed, and the recipient's public PGP or GPG key is sent with the message. If the message bounces, it gets sent to usenet. The recipient scans usenet for their PGP or GPG key. If they come across it, then the message gets delivered to them. This method has a problem dealing with spam, especially since the disk space cost and bandwidth cost increases dramatically for each bounce.

    The spam problem could be solved by limiting the number of bounced messages that can be sent from one host (NNTP-Posting-Host:, or even Path:), but that's only a partial solution.

    1. Re:From my reading by Fweeky · · Score: 2

      Or maybe you just look up the key and send to an alternative email registered on the keyring :)

    2. Re:From my reading by Letch · · Score: 1

      Oh yes Please! I really really want all my private email posted on usenet for the world to read! When can we start this?

    3. Re:From my reading by flonker · · Score: 2

      That's why you encrypt it using PGP or GPG. See alt.anonymous.messages to see how it's done.

    4. Re:From my reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The solution is right there in your description. If the message must be encrypted with the recipient's public key before posting, the computational and bandwidth overhead for the spammer increases dramatically. Only one addressee per message could read the text. The usenet server could then scan incoming messages for incoherence--if, say, 50% of a randomly selected line of text checks out in the dictionary, the message is presumed to be non-encrypted and is forwarded straight to abuse@senders-domain.

      As a bonus, all those lurid notes from the ex who's been stalking you aren't posted on usenet for all and sundry to read!

  17. not exactly e-mail forwarding... by jdbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...rather, this looks like some sort of (centralized) email-address registry which can be accessed by e-mail clients/servers to look for a more recent version of an out-of-date e-mail address.

    in other words, this is little more than an internet-based look-up table of e-mail addresses (with obsolete addresses pointing to the most recent address) + protocols for accessing that look-up table.

    in my (admittedly cursory) of the patent, it doesn't seem to overlap with server-specific e-mail forwarding (i.e. what is normally done with e-mail forwarding). this isn't to say that this isn't a silly/sleazy patent, but rather that this won't necessarily interfere with how people currently handle e-mail forwarding (if someone sees an element of overlap that I am missing, please point it out!).

    Not that any of this is clear from the write-up, of course; sometimes I wish that passing reading comprehension and composition courses was mandatory for internet usage... then I think again, because ninjas are awesome.

    1. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by Greg+Lindahl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Claim 1 is exactly how the NIS aliases map + sendmail behaves...

    2. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by Bostik · · Score: 2

      ...rather, this looks like some sort of (centralized) email-address registry which can be accessed by e-mail clients/servers to look for a more recent version of an out-of-date e-mail address.

      Say hello to Mr. Spammer.

      After this "innovation", the spammers can look forward to having much better delivery rates. No need to buy the up-to-date addresses from harvesters, they can just have one collection of addresses and rely on this kind of service to deliver their load.

      Not only does this sound like a no-innovation, it smells like a big no-no in practise too. Those who want to mail me, should have my current mail address anyhow.

      --
      There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
    3. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by jdbo · · Score: 2

      I didn't see that myself (admittedly this is not my area of specialty) - could you briefly summarize the similarities to demonstrate this overlap?

      Besides, pointing out prior art in a /. patent discussion = good karma. ;)

      thanks!

    4. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NIS is a centralised directory that can be set up to store e-mail, passwords etc. Normally it is used on corporate and university networks to store massive amounts of user data of that sort. Some sort of central server can be theoretically made to answer queries on the net, althoug I think LDAP is better suited fot this and already used for ... mail directories available on the net. You can configure any server like sendmail to look up data from these directories when a user is not found on your system. This whole patent as usual can be done in a page of perl script and is something that any 13 year script kiddie would come up with.

    5. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's their new startup...

    6. Re:not exactly e-mail forwarding... by jeavis · · Score: 1
      Greg Lindahl writes:
      Claim 1 is exactly how the NIS aliases map + sendmail behaves...
      Claim 2 strongly resembles Sendmail's REDIRECT feature.
  18. SENDMAIL: An Internetwork Mail Router (1985) by jukal · · Score: 3, Informative
    Ehmm. Great invention. Sorry to spoil the fun but .. :
    "...MMDF and sendmail both support aliasing, customized mailers, message batching, automatic forwarding to gateways, queueing, and retransmission."

    The orginal paper:
    SENDMAIL -- An Internetwork Mail Router, Eric Allman

    1. Re:SENDMAIL: An Internetwork Mail Router (1985) by jukal · · Score: 2
      > It's about routing mail from old addresses to new addresses based upon information in a central database.

      So, do you think that's a great innovation? Bullshit.

    2. Re:SENDMAIL: An Internetwork Mail Router (1985) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nIIIIIIIIIIICe.

      uh what is a database? it is a file that contains data. well .forward would qualify under the broad terms of 'central database'.

  19. It's not that bad: read the actual patent by jon_eaves · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's not click and forward, or "f" and forward or even ".forward" and forward.

    From the patent link A method of automatically resending an electronic message originally sent to a receiving user at a first address that is now invalid to a second address for the receiving user, wherein the second address has been registered with a forwarding address server

    It's very specifically related to dealing with bouncing mail and having a registry set up for when the bounce occurs stuff can happen to get the mail to the right place.

    Of course, I see a huge gaping security hole in this if I register the bounce address as mine.

    Yet another case of great editor review of stories. What's with the inflammatory headlines ? Clearly the person submitting the story didn't even read the article.

    1. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by jukal · · Score: 2
      " It's very specifically related to dealing with bouncing mail and having a registry set up for when the bounce occurs stuff can happen to get the mail to the right place. "

      Do you mean, like sendmail.cf ? :)))

    2. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by fferreres · · Score: 2

      Dont patents have to be original? The IDEA is clearly NOT original, so i think they should only be able to patent a specific implementation. Then again, I don't care, i have droped the towel, if they want to fuck the world and charge us for breathing H2O while chewing fruit scented bum and looking at the sky, go ahead.

      The world is becoming a shitty place to live on thanks to these "rights" trolls :( (pd: this means i feel we are losing in the world economic pie division. The cake is beign awarded to whoever except the people that really push the economy. Al possible innovation paths are being cornered and you can't do anything without a huge number of lawers telling whcih cardinal point you can walk without infringing.

      (I know its not a highly positive post, but that's exactly the idea. I feel tired and sad about all these stupid patents...really)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    3. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by morie · · Score: 2
      ... charge us for breathing H2O ...

      You breathe WATER? Wow!

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    4. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the patent link A method of automatically resending an electronic message originally sent to a receiving user at a first address that is now invalid to a second address for the receiving user, wherein the second address has been registered with a forwarding address server Of course, widely implemented in sendmail is A method of automatically resending an electronic message originally sent to a receiving user at a first address to a second address. Your call which method is a special case of the other.

    5. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2

      Not any more, he can't afford it.

    6. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by HardCase · · Score: 2
      Clearly the person submitting the story didn't even read the article.


      Since the average /. poster doesn't bother reading the story before posting a reply, it's just keeping in character!


      -h-

    7. Re:It's not that bad: read the actual patent by ufo14 · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to reassure everyone that security is an absolute concern. I have installed firewalls and other security for about 9 years now and am totally anal about security. everyone who registers an address change will prove their identity to a certainty. Probably the best way is to check the snail mail address they submit with their credit card company, but we're working on another way, just to be sure. The website will be all SSL and the lookup will be secure. Lots of work but we believe we can keep it tight. bob reilly (the inventor)

  20. Re: don't sue spammers, do business with them by jukal · · Score: 2

    Copy the business concept from here.

  21. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by rossz · · Score: 2

    Mail forwarding for first class mail is free in the U.S. Magazines have a slight charge to them.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  22. Overflow address: cool! by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah.

    Then I can sign up for a HotMail account, set an "overflow" address, and then send it crap until it turns into a pure forwarding address, after which I never, ever log into HitMail, ever again.

    I'm sure they'll really go for that idea:

    1) They get to pay to store as much useless crap as it takes to push the account over quota

    2) They don't get to sell my eyeballs to advertisers.

    3) ???

    4) Profit!!!

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Overflow address: cool! by GutBomb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      funny. i have been using hotmail for over a year however i have not seen a single banner ad, or even seen the website!

      MS Entourage (for mac)
      Outlook 2002 or Outlook Express 6 (for win32)

      Those programs allow you to use hotmail as if it were an IMAP service. No ads, no bullshit, just mail.

  23. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    It's sort of free in the U.S.

    If you start mail forwarding with one of those "Movers Guide" pamphlets, you pay for the service in the junk mail that gets sent to you. Read the back, that book is provided by the Direct Marketer's Association or some such thing. The info you supply is given directly to them as an "opt-in" for junk mail.

    This centralized server idea mentioned in the patent will cause spam in one of two ways:
    The owners will sell spammers access to the list, or perform mailings for them
    Someone will hack the sytem and download all the addresses
    Of course by the simple nature of the thing, a simple bot that generates random queries would eventually get you a lot of addresses across many domains. Imagine just sending it millions of queries for random screen names on AOL. MSN and the other major ISPs.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  24. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by Fweeky · · Score: 2
    Well, the patent doesn't cover this, since its limited to email where the forwarding server is a third party key => value (old email => new email) database, and where it's the client that decides to use it.

    It goes something like this:
    1. Take a current idea that's obvious to anyone.
    2. Patent it with 18 extra claims that limit scope.
    3. Profit!

    This is of course slightly different to BT's hyperlink patent, which is more along the lines of:
    1. Make some dodgy system and patent it in case it might be useful some day.
    2. Get upset when you notice you could have generalised the patent and covered something that could make you money if you could only get rid of some claims.
    3. Try to convince court that because of (2) the patent should cover the more general case anyway.
    4. Profit!

    Personally, I think the patent offices should have a moderation system. I'd vote this one down (-1, File an RFC).
  25. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is taking the piss.

  26. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by Turmio · · Score: 2

    Finland Post Corporation does this too, but if you move to a new address, they'll automatically redirect your mail mail sent to old address to this new address for 6 months for free. Pretty neat. For about $13 you can extend this period to one year.

  27. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by mpe · · Score: 2

    Take a current idea that's obvious to anyone.

    Including an idea which has been around for a long time. Wonder if the USPO checks against expired and refused patents in their prior art search...

    Patent it with 18 extra claims that limit scope.

    In the process try and stick as much jargon and obscure language in the application and refer to new machines and systems.
    There is even a term to describe this, "patent fraud".

  28. Works on Reply, not in Bouncer by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    You think it's supposed to run in the server which issues the bounce? I suppose it could, but the article suggests otherwise (I didn't wade through the patent...).

    Looks to me like the software actually goes in a mail server to process bounce messages from other machines. So your mail server intercepts the bounce messages, looks up the new address, and re-sends to the new address.

    I don't know how they intend to avoid identity theft. Maybe they don't, so we'll feel obligated to use their service to lock others out of our old addresses.

    Apparently in order to protect your old addresses and use this service you'll have to use an ISP with a Unix mail server....

  29. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Mail forward and returning of mail isn't free UK, it's included in the price of the original stamp.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  30. Again, please read the article.. by Marc2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agreed, that's easy, it's a simple redirect or alias on the previous email that is resident on their system. However. that is *not* what the patent is for (although admittedly that's what it sounded like before a read the abstract). The first line of the abstract states, "Systems and methods for automatically determining if the recipient of electronic mail that is unknown at the receiving server has left a "forwarding address" with a forwarding address server", which is significantly harder than setting up an alias on your own server. Also, this patent explicitly requires the use of a separate "forwarding address server" for them to be able to cry foul on someone else. While the idea itself is redundant, at least this patent seems somewhat unenforceable, as I can't imagine that populating one central database of bogus and their corresponding new addresses would prove feasible.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:Again, please read the article.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least this patent seems somewhat unenforceable.

      There also appears to be a lot of prior art references.

      If one were to be interested in designing around this patent they could probably do so by getting ahold of the patent's file wrapper from the patent office and reading how the patent was differentiated against the prior art during patent prosecution. Then one could implement that which was argued against in order to avoid infringement (assuming patent is valid against unreferenced patent art in the first place).

      Any news blurb about a broad based patent is going to be BS 99% of the time because the schmoe that wrote the article is either too stupid , lazy or cheap to get ahold of the file wrapper in order to read what the patent cannot cover (was argued against).

      This was exactly what happened in the BT hyperlink patent case where the news editors gleefully splattered us with alarmist "patenting the internet" horesh$%$%t based upon a patent with no teeth (no teeth because of what was stated in the file wrapper).

  31. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by GutBomb · · Score: 1

    well you could get technical in either way, ok, the US is the same, the forwarding is handled by the price of the stamp. or you could say that in the UK the forwarding is free. either way the result is the same, you initially pay for the stamp, for the forwarding to happen you needn't pay again. same fucking thing.

  32. So I says to him... by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    "How many IBM engineers does it take to use the bathroom?"

    Apparently, four.

    Inventors: Boies; Stephen J. (Mahopac, NY); Dinkin; Samuel (Austin, TX); Moskowitz; Paul Andrew (Yorktown Heights, NY); Yu; Philip Shi-Lung (Chappaqua, NY)

    --
    --- What
  33. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You guys are lucky. Canada Post charges a lot for the mail forwarding service. On top of that, there is tax for this service. :(

  34. heh by zapfie · · Score: 2

    All patents bad! Must post misleading headline! Need page hits!

    --
    slashdot!=valid HTML
  35. good point by Artifex · · Score: 2

    Of course, I see a huge gaping security hole in this if I register the bounce address as mine

    Let's see... you know someone who gets canned at work, or maybe who has forgotten to pay their internet bill and was suspended from their service, or has died, or something. Quickly, you set up a webmail account and tell this service that you're the owner of those accounts. Now you're getting all of their mail!

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  36. My Re:Stupid patents by RevDobbs · · Score: 2

    My recent patent application can be summarized thusly:

    "Bipedal motion, in which Ped One (1) is thrust in the direction of desired travel, followed by the retrieval and, if necessary, forward thrusting of Ped Two (2)."

    ph3@r.

  37. Not again... by Pedrito · · Score: 2

    I just submitted a patent for this new thing I've created. It's a round flat thing that I call (my best Doctor Evil finger quotes immitation) "a wheel." As far as I can tell, there is no prior art on this concept, but it's my contention that two or more of these "wheels", when connected by a post of some sort, that I call "an axle" (patent pending), can be used to make it easier to move a load from one location to another.

    I don't know why nobody thought of this before.

  38. the result is the same, by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    It's not the same,
    If the service is free it is paid for indirectly and can be withdrawn on a whim.

    In the UK putting a stamp on the letter means that it will be delivered to the addressee or returned. or that the delivery is guaranteed and directly paid for.

    Under this condition mail forwarding cannot be withdrawn.

    There's a hell of a lot of difference between without additional charge, inclusively charged and free.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  39. Prior art in RFC 821 by riflemann · · Score: 4, Informative

    RFC821 includes almost exactly this patent (hopefully enough to quash it), especially
    the 551 response:

    3.2. FORWARDING

    There are some cases where the destination information in the
    <forward-path> is incorrect, but the receiver-SMTP knows the
    correct destination. In such cases, one of the following replies
    should be used to allow the sender to contact the correct
    destination.

    [...]
    551 User not local; please try <forward-path>

    This reply indicates that the receiver-SMTP knows the user's
    mailbox is on another host and indicates the correct
    forward-path to use. Note that either the host or user or
    both may be different. The receiver refuses to accept mail
    for this user, and the sender must either redirect the mail
    according to the information provided or return an error
    response to the originating user.

    Or can the lawyers see holes in that?

  40. spammer wet dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I would advise a little research into the money behind this company. IMHO, some of it will be from spammers. Even if the company is squeaky clean, you can bet it will be a target of spammers. They may pay for access to the database or just crack it.

    Think of it... This is a spammers wet dream. A list of dead addresses to take out of the mill (or add to it if you charge by number of addresses sent) and a list of good addresses. AND, they charge you $20 for the privilege of updating their database.

  41. blarg! by Lhadatt · · Score: 1

    Misleading headline! It should be something like "PTO Stuffs" or quickies or whatever. But then again, this is /., bastion of the geek tabloids...

    --
    -----------
    POiT!
  42. Question... by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the USPO already do this? Don't they have claim to prior art.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  43. Re:Canada Post offers a similar regular mail servi by Bishop · · Score: 2

    there is tax for this service

    That would be the 'S' in GST.

  44. PTO destroying old paper archives is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are historical documents. Why don't they give them to museums? The problem with digital technology is we will lose our tangible history in books, documents, maps, photographs that will "look" old when they are printed out, but will only be a representation. Where's the texture, feel, and smell of the original, the actual ink on paper, the imagining that a real person, the creator of the thing, actually had it in their hand at the time it was produced, or read?

    I'm looking forward to the future when history is just a representation of the past.

  45. Brain-dead mail servers at Hotmail. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    My guess is that the problem is that Hotmail and other mail providers are apparently stupid enough to accept incoming mail with 300,000,000 recipients in the header. I can't think of any other reason why "rezrov" would get buried in spam almost instantly while "aimfiz69105" never gets any.

    The problem is that Hotmail is so stupid that that they apparently have no software to block mailers that are guessing addresses. If a mailer is is bouncing BCC'd messages at a rate greater than 90%, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the sender is probably a spammer. Hotmail's software should temporarily block the sending IP and automatically inform the owner of the problem. If the contact info is bad, tough. Let them wait a week/month/etc. until the block expires.

  46. resending .. inherent in SMTP by josepha48 · · Score: 2
    HMM when did rfc 821 come out? I was under the impression that this first claim was just the simple mail transport protocol in 'legal' mumbo jumbo.

    Isn't this what happens when you send an email to your ISP and it FORWARDS that email to the next system and so on? This is called relaying or something.

    HELO slashdot
    MAIL FROM me
    RCPT TO someone@uspto.gov
    DATA
    Date: today
    From: me
    To: someone@uspto.gov
    Subject: your a bunch of idiots
    Need I say more?
    .
    QUIT

    Hmm wont this get 'relayed' / 'forwarded' to them ???

    Gotta hate tech unaware people...

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

    1. Re:resending .. inherent in SMTP by josepha48 · · Score: 2

      I almost forgot. They filed in 1999. ANY EMAIL program that does forwarding would be prior art to this. Hmm like when did Netscape add email to their product first? Oh that's right I was using Eudora back then. They had forwarding and reply in 1994. I think that consists of enough prior art. Who wants to go after them?

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

  47. Address Mining for Fun & Profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hotmail, among almost every large ISP (I designed the 2nd or 3rd largest email service out there, we do the same thing), has to validate recipients during the protocol. Spammers can mine addresses without sending spam. They receive instant feedback to whether or not a given address is valid.

    The alternate, which is to accept email for any address at a hosted domain, generates a ridiculous amount of NDR traffic (for us, that'd be well over 200 million per day, not to be taken lightly).

    This comes with the territory, all you can hope for is better spam filtering, or less spamming (please help, I'll donate the pliers!!).

  48. .forward by jonr · · Score: 3, Funny

    When was .forward first used? This is getting even sillier. PTO should be renamed Ministry Of Silly Ideas (ala Monty Python).

  49. I'm gonna patent .forward! by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

    Do you think the USPTO will let me ;-)....

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  50. Dammit, I knew I had something to add to this. by Xenopax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's late in the discussion, but here I go....

    Back when I was a poor college student and PSU (The Pennsylvania State University) I remember a professor of mine in an algorithms class talk about the problem of searching a patent database. I forget all the figures, and who this professor was, and all the other important details, but I do remember he said that it was an extremely hard problem, to the point where PSU told the USPTO that it was impossible, because there was no way you could sustain the search at the rate patents were being submitted. It was something like, to do 1 keyword search (nothing fancy) it would take say an hour to do (I forget the numbers, like I said) at the time patents were rolling in at something much higher, like 200/hr or something alot higher than you would think.

    So basically the long short of this garbled mess of memories is to do a really good search using all kinds of fancy algorithms and stuff on the full patent database would never work since there are too many patents to search, especially at the rate they are coming in.

    And before you say "hardware has gotten a lot faster" remember this was brought up in an alorithm class, so it is doubtful that hardware has caught up to the rate they need. I really need to find a link to this problem so I can be a little more intelligent about this post. :-) (to google...)

  51. Too late ! by Fernando+Scandolo · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates has bought 1s and 0s already !

    See The Register - www.theregister.co.uk

  52. This is ludicrous by dacarr · · Score: 1
    Why does anybody need a patent for a system that can be built using /etc/aliases and maybe a ~/.forward per user?

    Frankly, this should have the "Laugh. It's funny." foot attached to the article. But that's just me.

    --
    This sig no verb.