From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Feb  2 00:45:28 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:45:28 -0800
Subject: [ih] Dave Mills has passed away
In-Reply-To: <B0780284-C093-4955-9303-5B7F6F315C79@icloud.com>
References: <CAAFtm_UCRsBSbZYcSAzb4wGapWgpUGKPAQcgcjMqjqScmhQdtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B0780284-C093-4955-9303-5B7F6F315C79@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <CE2FE931-5801-47B0-B35B-F4E73F9D0461@icloud.com>


On Jan 19, 2024, at 2:59?PM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I wish I?d gotten to know him better.  I remember having a short conversation with him at the March 1987 Interop in Monterey about the SRI reconstruction protocol and some other things.  But the discussions he had on the tcp-ip list with John Nagle, Van Jacobson, and some others regarding the Internet congestion problems occurring at the time really made an impression on me, personally and professionally.  [1]
> 
> ?gregbo
> 
> [1] https://groups.google.com/g/mod.protocols.tcp-ip/c/KhQVHnVF3-Q/m/BB4mTSLkJFYJ
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

While searching for more of those pre-1986 ancestral IETF lists, I ran across this interview of Dave Mills. [2] I learned a lot about him that I didn?t know.  He discussed his roles in the ICCB and its descendants.  He also gave several anecdotes about his career and interactions with his peers.  One topic that interested me was the denial of service attack on Wisconsin ISPs caused by NTP.  There is more about the incident in a document written by Dave Plonka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison [3] and RFC 4330. [4]

?gregbo

[2] https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/113899/oh403dlm.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[3] https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/
[4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4330

From johnl at iecc.com  Fri Feb  2 09:29:05 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 2 Feb 2024 12:29:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
Message-ID: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>

Over in the IETF we're having a robust debate about changing the way
Internet Drafts do or do not expire, and in particular whether to let
them stay active (for some definition of active) for more than six
months.

RFC 2026 says this:

   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ...

Does anyone remember where the six months came from?  Was it some principle
to keep things moving along, or maybe just if we keep them for more than
six months we'll have to get a bigger disk?

READING COMPREHENSION TEST: We already have plenty of guesses, so we
don't need any more. I'm asking if anyone was there at the time and
remembers the actual reason.

R's,
John


From lyman at interisle.net  Fri Feb  2 10:16:12 2024
From: lyman at interisle.net (Lyman Chapin)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:16:12 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>



> On Feb 2, 2024, at 12:29 PM, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Over in the IETF we're having a robust debate about changing the way
> Internet Drafts do or do not expire, and in particular whether to let
> them stay active (for some definition of active) for more than six
> months.
> 
> RFC 2026 says this:
> 
>   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
>   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
>   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
>   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ...
> 
> Does anyone remember where the six months came from?  Was it some principle
> to keep things moving along, or maybe just if we keep them for more than
> six months we'll have to get a bigger disk?
> 
> READING COMPREHENSION TEST: We already have plenty of guesses, so we
> don't need any more. I'm asking if anyone was there at the time and
> remembers the actual reason.

RFC 1310 is the original specification of the Internet standards process, and it includes the ?six months? provision. As one of the authors of that RFC, I know that we wanted to prevent Internet Drafts from acquiring any status other than ?ephemeral working document,? and a timer (with the clock re-starting for a new version of the draft) was part of that thinking from the beginning.

As for the timeout value being six months, I suspect that someone in the room asked ?what do you think the time limit should be?? and someone else said ?how about six months??

- Lyman

> 
> R's,
> John
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history


From craig at tereschau.net  Fri Feb  2 11:06:48 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:06:48 -0700
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
 <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CfWjbN-kiq3aO0NQk_wRU-yA6oWrwd38VEQZSNAX-T-ew@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> RFC 1310 is the original specification of the Internet standards process,
> and it includes the ?six months? provision. As one of the authors of that
> RFC, I know that we wanted to prevent Internet Drafts from acquiring any
> status other than ?ephemeral working document,? and a timer (with the clock
> re-starting for a new version of the draft) was part of that thinking from
> the beginning.
>
> As for the timeout value being six months, I suspect that someone in the
> room asked ?what do you think the time limit should be?? and someone else
> said ?how about six months??
>
> - Lyman
>

Lyman's the likely expert here, but I do remember when Internet Drafts were
created and then discussion about this in the IESG when I was still on the
IESG (so before mid-1991 or so).  I seem to recall [and could be wrong],
that one reason 6 months was chosen was to ensure that a draft didn't time
out before at least one IETF meeting took place to discuss it.  While much
happened on mailing lists, we did have some processes that were driven by
face-to-face meetings.  If someone turned around a draft the week after
Meeting X, Meeting X+1 was 4-5 months in the future -- and rounding up to 6
months made sense.

Craig

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Fri Feb  2 11:14:11 2024
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:14:11 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
 <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQEEh5m5h7sMuYdN=3FED+czux3W7OjA07og2LbJ_7VADw@mail.gmail.com>

At the time there were several products that had been marketed and shipped
with InternetDraft compatibility as their specifications.    There was a
huge amount of worry in the IETF about IDs becoming pseudo standards, in
ways that might have ossified the IDs before they were done.

I recall some fixes:

   - Explicit draft lifetimes, slightly longer than the intervals between
   meetings (i.e. 6 months) to make it easy to identify docs that were not
   evolving on cadence;
   - Stronger language about the the scope of Internet-Drafts (the language
   about other organization issuing IDs came from this time);
   - and  the killer, the RFC Editor (Jon Postel) reordered the fields in
   one spec when it went to RFC.  I remember the change (moving the version
   field to the very front of the message) but not the protocol.   This of
   course busted all ID compatible implementations.

It would be an important artifact to find the RFC and corresponding ID.

Given that expired IDs never disappear, I see no reason to change ID
lifetimes.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.



On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 10:16?AM Lyman Chapin via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 2, 2024, at 12:29 PM, John Levine via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Over in the IETF we're having a robust debate about changing the way
> > Internet Drafts do or do not expire, and in particular whether to let
> > them stay active (for some definition of active) for more than six
> > months.
> >
> > RFC 2026 says this:
> >
> >   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
> >   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
> >   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
> >   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ...
> >
> > Does anyone remember where the six months came from?  Was it some
> principle
> > to keep things moving along, or maybe just if we keep them for more than
> > six months we'll have to get a bigger disk?
> >
> > READING COMPREHENSION TEST: We already have plenty of guesses, so we
> > don't need any more. I'm asking if anyone was there at the time and
> > remembers the actual reason.
>
> RFC 1310 is the original specification of the Internet standards process,
> and it includes the ?six months? provision. As one of the authors of that
> RFC, I know that we wanted to prevent Internet Drafts from acquiring any
> status other than ?ephemeral working document,? and a timer (with the clock
> re-starting for a new version of the draft) was part of that thinking from
> the beginning.
>
> As for the timeout value being six months, I suspect that someone in the
> room asked ?what do you think the time limit should be?? and someone else
> said ?how about six months??
>
> - Lyman
>
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Fri Feb  2 11:14:58 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:14:58 -0700
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CfWjbN-kiq3aO0NQk_wRU-yA6oWrwd38VEQZSNAX-T-ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
 <A2238114-A4DE-42C1-8677-E7B7D69372CA@interisle.net>
 <CAHQj4CfWjbN-kiq3aO0NQk_wRU-yA6oWrwd38VEQZSNAX-T-ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CcUiZbadihHUn-RyjsgDVQCbw9f5c0YSmjk_Xyu+iZxDg@mail.gmail.com>

More history if one wishes.

Internet-Drafts were initially called IDEAS and created at the Boulder
meeting in 1987 (see intro to those meeting proceedings).  IDEAS didn't
quite get off the ground and the notion was revised and the rules for
Internet-Drafts were announced at the UT-Austin meeting in 1989 (see the
Chair's message up front) and included the 6 month rule.

Craig



On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:06?PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:

>
>
>>
>> RFC 1310 is the original specification of the Internet standards process,
>> and it includes the ?six months? provision. As one of the authors of that
>> RFC, I know that we wanted to prevent Internet Drafts from acquiring any
>> status other than ?ephemeral working document,? and a timer (with the clock
>> re-starting for a new version of the draft) was part of that thinking from
>> the beginning.
>>
>> As for the timeout value being six months, I suspect that someone in the
>> room asked ?what do you think the time limit should be?? and someone else
>> said ?how about six months??
>>
>> - Lyman
>>
>
> Lyman's the likely expert here, but I do remember when Internet Drafts
> were created and then discussion about this in the IESG when I was still on
> the IESG (so before mid-1991 or so).  I seem to recall [and could be
> wrong], that one reason 6 months was chosen was to ensure that a draft
> didn't time out before at least one IETF meeting took place to discuss it.
> While much happened on mailing lists, we did have some processes that were
> driven by face-to-face meetings.  If someone turned around a draft the week
> after Meeting X, Meeting X+1 was 4-5 months in the future -- and rounding
> up to 6 months made sense.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From karl at iwl.com  Fri Feb  2 17:07:12 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:07:12 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <97ce1700-2cf1-4011-b9e6-cbfc58fca256@iwl.com>

Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered 
filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small 
set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".? (I 
don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I 
certainly hope it does not.)

As a consequence, the non-official, and particularly the auto-erase 
aspect, of Internet Drafts tended to keep them out of the eyes of US 
patent examiners in their searches for prior art. (It did not seem to 
matter to the USPTO that there are plenty of places to find unofficial 
collections of I-Ds.)

It has long concerned me that this opened the doors to the issuance of 
ill US patents that cover the same grounds as covered in Internet Drafts.

(The increasing tendency of Internet RFCs and Internet standards to be 
purely normative with little to no explanation of the choices made and 
what other choices were examined but not selected has also opened the 
door to bad patents.)

I argued against this IETF practice decades ago, but I was unsuccessful.)

 ??? ??? --karl--

On 2/2/24 9:29 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> Over in the IETF we're having a robust debate about changing the way
> Internet Drafts do or do not expire, and in particular whether to let
> them stay active (for some definition of active) for more than six
> months.
>
> RFC 2026 says this:
>
>     An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
>     unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
>     without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
>     simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ...
>
> Does anyone remember where the six months came from?  Was it some principle
> to keep things moving along, or maybe just if we keep them for more than
> six months we'll have to get a bigger disk?
>
> READING COMPREHENSION TEST: We already have plenty of guesses, so we
> don't need any more. I'm asking if anyone was there at the time and
> remembers the actual reason.
>
> R's,
> John


From sob at sobco.com  Fri Feb  2 17:17:38 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:17:38 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <97ce1700-2cf1-4011-b9e6-cbfc58fca256@iwl.com>
References: <20240202172905.A994E8217804@ary.qy>
 <97ce1700-2cf1-4011-b9e6-cbfc58fca256@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <96AFDC06-E362-4ECF-8997-B583ED0880F7@sobco.com>

the us patent office accepts IDs for [prior art if they are verified by the IETF secretariat  (which has
a verification process) 

Scott (who knows from personal experience)



> On Feb 2, 2024, at 8:07?PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".  (I don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I certainly hope it does not.)
> 
> As a consequence, the non-official, and particularly the auto-erase aspect, of Internet Drafts tended to keep them out of the eyes of US patent examiners in their searches for prior art. (It did not seem to matter to the USPTO that there are plenty of places to find unofficial collections of I-Ds.)
> 
> It has long concerned me that this opened the doors to the issuance of ill US patents that cover the same grounds as covered in Internet Drafts.
> 
> (The increasing tendency of Internet RFCs and Internet standards to be purely normative with little to no explanation of the choices made and what other choices were examined but not selected has also opened the door to bad patents.)
> 
> I argued against this IETF practice decades ago, but I was unsuccessful.)
> 
>         --karl--
> 
> On 2/2/24 9:29 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> Over in the IETF we're having a robust debate about changing the way
>> Internet Drafts do or do not expire, and in particular whether to let
>> them stay active (for some definition of active) for more than six
>> months.
>> 
>> RFC 2026 says this:
>> 
>>    An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
>>    unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
>>    without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
>>    simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. ...
>> 
>> Does anyone remember where the six months came from?  Was it some principle
>> to keep things moving along, or maybe just if we keep them for more than
>> six months we'll have to get a bigger disk?
>> 
>> READING COMPREHENSION TEST: We already have plenty of guesses, so we
>> don't need any more. I'm asking if anyone was there at the time and
>> remembers the actual reason.
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb  3 11:12:36 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 3 Feb 2024 14:12:36 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <97ce1700-2cf1-4011-b9e6-cbfc58fca256@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>

It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
>Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered 
>filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small 
>set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".? (I 
>don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I 
>certainly hope it does not.)

I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and what's prior art.

You're right, the searches for software patents used to be terrible so
they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and all.

It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
review. Anything published more than a year before the application was
filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count. 

They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to apply,
while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
10 thereafter.

R's,
John





From karl at iwl.com  Sat Feb  3 12:22:45 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:22:45 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>

You (and Scott) are both correct that the USPTO has improved from the 
days when Bruce Lehman used to call those submitting patent applications 
and paying USPTO fees "our customers" and promised to focus on servicing 
those paying customers.

(Lehman was so deeply in the pocket of patent applicants that he was 
actually booed after a presentation to a meeting of IP lawyers in San 
Jose.? And Carl Malamud's buying - and then publishing - USPTO's 
income-generating, but public domain, DVDs of patent materials - drove 
Lehman to turn apoplectic shades of red at the mere mention of Carl's 
name, a fact that I have personally tested and verified.)

To provide an example, although not IETF related:? One has to wonder at 
the institutional blindness when the USPTO issued to IBM a patent on 
token ring well after Farber's work on DCS at UC Irvine.? (Eventually, 
if memory serves, the IBM patent was cancelled after issuance because of 
DCS.)

Today the community (in part thanks to EFF) has become more vigilant 
about recent era applications and raising awareness of prior thinking 
before issuance.

The key word, as you note, is "before".

Once issued a patent gains a rebuttable presumption of validity; that 
presumption changes the calculus of the weight of evidence that is 
needed to reverse the granted patent.? It's the usual case of "easy" (or 
"easier") and less expensive before but "harder" and more expensive 
afterwords.

Long ago I suggested that the IETF follow the path of entities such as 
the IEEE, by which I mean, the IETF should create a printed (yes, paper 
[perhaps only printed on demand] as well as online) quarterly journal, 
call it "Proceedings of the IETF", which would publish every ID and 
minutes of every working group (including email interactions).

(Ole Jacobson's Internet Protocol Journal is already a great start in 
the right direction.)

While this level of formality may now be unnecessary in the US (and I 
emphasize the word "may") the world of patents is broader than the US 
and not all patent offices around the world may have become as willing 
as the USPTO to go beyond classic professional journals.? For the IETF 
and Interenet, in this particular area, it's best to look and act like 
an old time professional engineering or scientific body.

(I wonder, could one of these new LLC generative AI systems be trained 
on IETF materials, including e-mail of working groups, and be provided 
as a service to the community?? It would be nice if other bodies such as 
3GPP, W3C, and Chinese Next Gen IP, and other networking materials could 
be included, but that could raise copyright/licensing issues.)

 ??? --karl--

On 2/3/24 11:12 AM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
>> Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered
>> filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small
>> set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".? (I
>> don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I
>> certainly hope it does not.)
> I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and what's prior art.
>
> You're right, the searches for software patents used to be terrible so
> they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
> novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and all.
>
> It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
> formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
> review. Anything published more than a year before the application was
> filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count.
>
> They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
> been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
> IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to apply,
> while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
> 10 thereafter.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>


From vint at google.com  Sat Feb  3 12:35:52 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:35:52 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>

Karl,
under the current "first to file" USPTO rules, would the primary grounds
for invalidating an issued patent claim be validated public prior art or a
prior patent grant that conflicts with the later one?

vint


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 3:23?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> You (and Scott) are both correct that the USPTO has improved from the
> days when Bruce Lehman used to call those submitting patent applications
> and paying USPTO fees "our customers" and promised to focus on servicing
> those paying customers.
>
> (Lehman was so deeply in the pocket of patent applicants that he was
> actually booed after a presentation to a meeting of IP lawyers in San
> Jose.  And Carl Malamud's buying - and then publishing - USPTO's
> income-generating, but public domain, DVDs of patent materials - drove
> Lehman to turn apoplectic shades of red at the mere mention of Carl's
> name, a fact that I have personally tested and verified.)
>
> To provide an example, although not IETF related:  One has to wonder at
> the institutional blindness when the USPTO issued to IBM a patent on
> token ring well after Farber's work on DCS at UC Irvine.  (Eventually,
> if memory serves, the IBM patent was cancelled after issuance because of
> DCS.)
>
> Today the community (in part thanks to EFF) has become more vigilant
> about recent era applications and raising awareness of prior thinking
> before issuance.
>
> The key word, as you note, is "before".
>
> Once issued a patent gains a rebuttable presumption of validity; that
> presumption changes the calculus of the weight of evidence that is
> needed to reverse the granted patent.  It's the usual case of "easy" (or
> "easier") and less expensive before but "harder" and more expensive
> afterwords.
>
> Long ago I suggested that the IETF follow the path of entities such as
> the IEEE, by which I mean, the IETF should create a printed (yes, paper
> [perhaps only printed on demand] as well as online) quarterly journal,
> call it "Proceedings of the IETF", which would publish every ID and
> minutes of every working group (including email interactions).
>
> (Ole Jacobson's Internet Protocol Journal is already a great start in
> the right direction.)
>
> While this level of formality may now be unnecessary in the US (and I
> emphasize the word "may") the world of patents is broader than the US
> and not all patent offices around the world may have become as willing
> as the USPTO to go beyond classic professional journals.  For the IETF
> and Interenet, in this particular area, it's best to look and act like
> an old time professional engineering or scientific body.
>
> (I wonder, could one of these new LLC generative AI systems be trained
> on IETF materials, including e-mail of working groups, and be provided
> as a service to the community?  It would be nice if other bodies such as
> 3GPP, W3C, and Chinese Next Gen IP, and other networking materials could
> be included, but that could raise copyright/licensing issues.)
>
>      --karl--
>
> On 2/3/24 11:12 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
> >> Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only considered
> >> filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small
> >> set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".  (I
> >> don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I
> >> certainly hope it does not.)
> > I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and what's
> prior art.
> >
> > You're right, the searches for software patents used to be terrible so
> > they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
> > novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and all.
> >
> > It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
> > formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
> > review. Anything published more than a year before the application was
> > filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count.
> >
> > They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
> > been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
> > IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to apply,
> > while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
> > 10 thereafter.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From karl at iwl.com  Sat Feb  3 13:20:37 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 13:20:37 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>

I'm not sufficiently skilled with the changes to the US patent law to 
know a full answer to your question.? (I'm more into the copyright side 
of things - although yesterday I was nearly drowned in academic 
discussions of trade secret issues, particularly with regard AI, and 
fair/transformative copyright use after the Warhol decision.)

I am really glad you said "an issued patent claim" - most people don't 
distinguish between a full patent and the hierarchies of claims of which 
the full patent is composed.

One thing about patents is that they are composed of a tree of claims.? 
When we talk about invalidating patents we are actually talking about 
invalidating specific claims in patents.? Sometimes invalidating a 
single claim can trigger complete invalidity of a patent, or it might 
just partially weaken a patent.

Slightly jumping to a couple of related topics: 1) an ISOC or IETF arm 
to collect and license patents, and 2) provisional patents

- I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that 
could accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for 
free or for reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)? I have 
nothing more detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the 
surfacing of patent trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.

- I've suggested (and myself have used) provisional patents to nail down 
a specific date.? Provisionals are easy and inexpensive; they can give a 
head start when one has an idea but needs time to develop it into a full 
patent application.? I am, however, unsure the degree that provisionals 
can establish prior art (but they can, I believe, sometimes be used as 
evidence to help establish prior use of an idea when one is accused of 
violating a patent issued subsequent to the date of the provisional.)

(Because they are so cheap and easy I've done provisionals on ideas that 
never gelled - like an idea to have stick-on things to put on various 
LED indicator lights on equipment so that the state of the LEDs could be 
published to a network based monitor via SNMP or Netconf - there's 
multiple patentable ideas in there, such as how-to-adhere the widget or 
how to read and express the state [or color] of a rapidly blinking LED.)

 ??? ??? --karl--

On 2/3/24 12:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> Karl,
> under the current "first to file" USPTO rules, would the primary 
> grounds for invalidating an issued patent claim be validated public 
> prior art or a prior patent grant that conflicts with the later one?
>
> vint
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 3:23?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     You (and Scott) are both correct that the USPTO has improved from the
>     days when Bruce Lehman used to call those submitting patent
>     applications
>     and paying USPTO fees "our customers" and promised to focus on
>     servicing
>     those paying customers.
>
>     (Lehman was so deeply in the pocket of patent applicants that he was
>     actually booed after a presentation to a meeting of IP lawyers in San
>     Jose.? And Carl Malamud's buying - and then publishing - USPTO's
>     income-generating, but public domain, DVDs of patent materials -
>     drove
>     Lehman to turn apoplectic shades of red at the mere mention of Carl's
>     name, a fact that I have personally tested and verified.)
>
>     To provide an example, although not IETF related:? One has to
>     wonder at
>     the institutional blindness when the USPTO issued to IBM a patent on
>     token ring well after Farber's work on DCS at UC Irvine. (Eventually,
>     if memory serves, the IBM patent was cancelled after issuance
>     because of
>     DCS.)
>
>     Today the community (in part thanks to EFF) has become more vigilant
>     about recent era applications and raising awareness of prior thinking
>     before issuance.
>
>     The key word, as you note, is "before".
>
>     Once issued a patent gains a rebuttable presumption of validity; that
>     presumption changes the calculus of the weight of evidence that is
>     needed to reverse the granted patent.? It's the usual case of
>     "easy" (or
>     "easier") and less expensive before but "harder" and more expensive
>     afterwords.
>
>     Long ago I suggested that the IETF follow the path of entities
>     such as
>     the IEEE, by which I mean, the IETF should create a printed (yes,
>     paper
>     [perhaps only printed on demand] as well as online) quarterly
>     journal,
>     call it "Proceedings of the IETF", which would publish every ID and
>     minutes of every working group (including email interactions).
>
>     (Ole Jacobson's Internet Protocol Journal is already a great start in
>     the right direction.)
>
>     While this level of formality may now be unnecessary in the US (and I
>     emphasize the word "may") the world of patents is broader than the US
>     and not all patent offices around the world may have become as
>     willing
>     as the USPTO to go beyond classic professional journals.? For the
>     IETF
>     and Interenet, in this particular area, it's best to look and act
>     like
>     an old time professional engineering or scientific body.
>
>     (I wonder, could one of these new LLC generative AI systems be
>     trained
>     on IETF materials, including e-mail of working groups, and be
>     provided
>     as a service to the community?? It would be nice if other bodies
>     such as
>     3GPP, W3C, and Chinese Next Gen IP, and other networking materials
>     could
>     be included, but that could raise copyright/licensing issues.)
>
>     ???? --karl--
>
>     On 2/3/24 11:12 AM, John Levine wrote:
>     > It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history
>     <karl at iwl.com> said:
>     >> Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only
>     considered
>     >> filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in
>     a small
>     >> set of professional technical journals as representing "prior
>     art".? (I
>     >> don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I
>     >> certainly hope it does not.)
>     > I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and
>     what's prior art.
>     >
>     > You're right, the searches for software patents used to be
>     terrible so
>     > they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
>     > novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and
>     all.
>     >
>     > It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
>     > formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
>     > review. Anything published more than a year before the
>     application was
>     > filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count.
>     >
>     > They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
>     > been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
>     > IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to
>     apply,
>     > while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
>     > 10 thereafter.
>     >
>     > R's,
>     > John
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
>
> -- 
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
>
>
>

From vint at google.com  Sat Feb  3 13:25:23 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:25:23 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service that
they could be compensated for doing. As you know, ISOC has a challenge
demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS Public
Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a fraction
of the PIR income as "public".

vint


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:20?PM Karl Auerbach <karl at iwl.com> wrote:

> I'm not sufficiently skilled with the changes to the US patent law to know
> a full answer to your question.  (I'm more into the copyright side of
> things - although yesterday I was nearly drowned in academic discussions of
> trade secret issues, particularly with regard AI, and fair/transformative
> copyright use after the Warhol decision.)
>
> I am really glad you said "an issued patent claim" - most people don't
> distinguish between a full patent and the hierarchies of claims of which
> the full patent is composed.
>
> One thing about patents is that they are composed of a tree of claims.
> When we talk about invalidating patents we are actually talking about
> invalidating specific claims in patents.  Sometimes invalidating a single
> claim can trigger complete invalidity of a patent, or it might just
> partially weaken a patent.
>
> Slightly jumping to a couple of related topics: 1) an ISOC or IETF arm to
> collect and license patents, and 2) provisional patents
>
> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that
> could accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for free
> or for reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)  I have nothing
> more detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the surfacing of
> patent trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.
>
> - I've suggested (and myself have used) provisional patents to nail down a
> specific date.  Provisionals are easy and inexpensive; they can give a head
> start when one has an idea but needs time to develop it into a full patent
> application.  I am, however, unsure the degree that provisionals can
> establish prior art (but they can, I believe, sometimes be used as evidence
> to help establish prior use of an idea when one is accused of violating a
> patent issued subsequent to the date of the provisional.)
>
> (Because they are so cheap and easy I've done provisionals on ideas that
> never gelled - like an idea to have stick-on things to put on various LED
> indicator lights on equipment so that the state of the LEDs could be
> published to a network based monitor via SNMP or Netconf - there's multiple
> patentable ideas in there, such as how-to-adhere the widget or how to read
> and express the state [or color] of a rapidly blinking LED.)
>
>         --karl--
> On 2/3/24 12:35 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>
> Karl,
> under the current "first to file" USPTO rules, would the primary grounds
> for invalidating an issued patent claim be validated public prior art or a
> prior patent grant that conflicts with the later one?
>
> vint
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 3:23?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> You (and Scott) are both correct that the USPTO has improved from the
>> days when Bruce Lehman used to call those submitting patent applications
>> and paying USPTO fees "our customers" and promised to focus on servicing
>> those paying customers.
>>
>> (Lehman was so deeply in the pocket of patent applicants that he was
>> actually booed after a presentation to a meeting of IP lawyers in San
>> Jose.  And Carl Malamud's buying - and then publishing - USPTO's
>> income-generating, but public domain, DVDs of patent materials - drove
>> Lehman to turn apoplectic shades of red at the mere mention of Carl's
>> name, a fact that I have personally tested and verified.)
>>
>> To provide an example, although not IETF related:  One has to wonder at
>> the institutional blindness when the USPTO issued to IBM a patent on
>> token ring well after Farber's work on DCS at UC Irvine.  (Eventually,
>> if memory serves, the IBM patent was cancelled after issuance because of
>> DCS.)
>>
>> Today the community (in part thanks to EFF) has become more vigilant
>> about recent era applications and raising awareness of prior thinking
>> before issuance.
>>
>> The key word, as you note, is "before".
>>
>> Once issued a patent gains a rebuttable presumption of validity; that
>> presumption changes the calculus of the weight of evidence that is
>> needed to reverse the granted patent.  It's the usual case of "easy" (or
>> "easier") and less expensive before but "harder" and more expensive
>> afterwords.
>>
>> Long ago I suggested that the IETF follow the path of entities such as
>> the IEEE, by which I mean, the IETF should create a printed (yes, paper
>> [perhaps only printed on demand] as well as online) quarterly journal,
>> call it "Proceedings of the IETF", which would publish every ID and
>> minutes of every working group (including email interactions).
>>
>> (Ole Jacobson's Internet Protocol Journal is already a great start in
>> the right direction.)
>>
>> While this level of formality may now be unnecessary in the US (and I
>> emphasize the word "may") the world of patents is broader than the US
>> and not all patent offices around the world may have become as willing
>> as the USPTO to go beyond classic professional journals.  For the IETF
>> and Interenet, in this particular area, it's best to look and act like
>> an old time professional engineering or scientific body.
>>
>> (I wonder, could one of these new LLC generative AI systems be trained
>> on IETF materials, including e-mail of working groups, and be provided
>> as a service to the community?  It would be nice if other bodies such as
>> 3GPP, W3C, and Chinese Next Gen IP, and other networking materials could
>> be included, but that could raise copyright/licensing issues.)
>>
>>      --karl--
>>
>> On 2/3/24 11:12 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> > It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
>> >> Back in the day (whenever that was) the US Patent office only
>> considered
>> >> filed (and perhaps only issued) patents and items published in a small
>> >> set of professional technical journals as representing "prior art".  (I
>> >> don't know whether that self-inflicted blindness still exists, I
>> >> certainly hope it does not.)
>> > I think you're confusing what the examiners use to search and what's
>> prior art.
>> >
>> > You're right, the searches for software patents used to be terrible so
>> > they allowed patents on stuff that was widely used and not at all
>> > novel. I believe they use more sources now, what with Google and all.
>> >
>> > It's always been possible for a third party to challenge a patent,
>> > formerly via reexamination, now by inter partes review or post grant
>> > review. Anything published more than a year before the application was
>> > filed is prior art, and as Scott noted, I-D's count.
>> >
>> > They also allow Preissuance Submissions for applications that have
>> > been published but not allowed, to alert the examiner to prior art.
>> > IPR and PGR are very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars to apply,
>> > while PS are cheap, free for up to three documents and $180 for each
>> > 10 thereafter.
>> >
>> > R's,
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346>
>
>
> until further notice
>
>
>
>

-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From rwcallon at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 13:27:47 2024
From: rwcallon at gmail.com (Ross Callon)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:27:47 -0500
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6173108B-284D-4719-9D43-FC52FFD6512B@gmail.com>

Either could be used to invalidate patent claims. 

However, it is common for a patent to have somewhat vague claims. There is frequently a question ?what does this claim really mean?. Prior art can often be used to argue to limit the interpretation of a claim. ?What we do is what is in all of this prior art that preceded this patent, so the claim must mean this other thing? is a possible argument. 

To me the six month expiration of an internet draft, plus the public availability of old expired internet drafts, is a brilliant system. The expiration is a strong argument that ?this is not a standard, it is expired, do not implement it?. However, having the drafts still available is very useful for a variety of reasons. Understanding history and limiting patent claims being two of the reasons that access to expired Internet Drafts is valuable. 

thanks, Ross 

> On Feb 3, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Karl,
> under the current "first to file" USPTO rules, would the primary grounds
> for invalidating an issued patent claim be validated public prior art or a
> prior patent grant that conflicts with the later one?
> 
> vint



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb  3 13:34:56 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 13:34:56 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <6173108B-284D-4719-9D43-FC52FFD6512B@gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6173108B-284D-4719-9D43-FC52FFD6512B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b4dfc870-d9a4-4714-9025-f69dfeaf4a73@dcrocker.net>

On 2/3/2024 1:27 PM, Ross Callon via Internet-history wrote:
> To me the six month expiration of an internet draft, plus the public
> availability of old expired internet drafts, is a brilliant system.

As I recall, drafts became inaccessible once they expired, to emphasize 
the desire that they not be cited or otherwise use.

This, predictably, was not sustainable, as demands for old drafts 
constantly occurred.? So eventually they were kept online.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb  3 14:30:05 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 3 Feb 2024 17:30:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
Message-ID: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that could 
> accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for free or for 
> reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)? I have nothing more 
> detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the surfacing of patent 
> trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.

Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH NONONONONONO.
That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.

The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely written by 
Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading expert on standards 
and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with us.  Scott was his coauthor 
and might fill in some details.

To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must disclose 
IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with them. Most IETF 
standards are either unencumbered or have free public licenses but there have 
been a few with more restrictive licenses.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html

Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND, 
standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb  3 14:30:46 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 3 Feb 2024 17:30:46 -0500
Subject: [ih] prior art, Why the six month draft expiration ?
Message-ID: <e11c9028-e11c-46f5-a7e5-48d9f6fcd499@iecc.com>

> Long ago I suggested that the IETF follow the path of entities such as the 
> IEEE, by which I mean, the IETF should create a printed (yes, paper [perhaps 
> only printed on demand] as well as online) quarterly journal, call it 
> "Proceedings of the IETF", which would publish every ID and minutes of every 
> working group (including email interactions).

There's no need to print anything.  The USPTO says

  An electronic publication, including an online database or Internet
  publication (e.g., discussion group, forum, digital video, or social
  media post), is considered to be a ?printed publication? within the meaning of
  35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the
  publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the
  document relates.

  https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html

All of the IETF's I-Ds and email lists are in a public archive that the usual 
search engines visit so I think we're covered there.  I believe the EPO has a 
similarly broad view of prior art:

https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a54.html

R's,
John

PS:

> (I wonder, could one of these new LLC generative AI systems be trained on 
> IETF materials, including e-mail of working groups, and be provided as a 
> service to the community?? It would be nice if other bodies such as 3GPP, 
> W3C, and Chinese Next Gen IP, and other networking materials could be 
> included, but that could raise copyright/licensing issues.)

Given the tendency of LLMs to tell highly plausible lies, that would really be 
asking for trouble.


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 14:51:12 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:51:12 +1300
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>

On 04-Feb-24 11:30, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that could
>> accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for free or for
>> reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)? I have nothing more
>> detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the surfacing of patent
>> trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.
> 
> Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH NONONONONONO.

Ditto, and ditto.

> That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.

Worse than that, it would make the IETF into an evil patent pool in
itself, with an extremely high risk of becoming a de facto cartel.

Fortunately, most active IETFers hate patents and (IMO) hate their
own corporate patent lawyers too. So we've had rather few instances
of the standards process being held hostage to patent claims.

> 
> The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely written by
> Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading expert on standards
> and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with us.  Scott was his coauthor
> and might fill in some details.
> 
> To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must disclose
> IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with them. Most IETF
> standards are either unencumbered or have free public licenses but there have
> been a few with more restrictive licenses.

And it says that patent claims MAY be taken into account in the decision
to standardize something. That flexibility is important - if someone does
show up with a patented bright idea, they are very strongly incented to
also show up with fair licensing conditions. Otherwise, no RFC, which matters
when purchasers require RFC compliance.

    Brian

> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
> 
> Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND,
> standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
> 
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 15:42:33 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:42:33 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHwO5vHLFF5+b2+BXfnv=tO1Xeo4v=z_NWSnWf2CvgTqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Since my patent credentials are pretty impeccable (licensed Patent Agent,
an SSRN paper that was cited in an *amicus *brief for *CLS Bank v. Alice*):

anything that's a "printed publication" is prior art. It doesn't matter if
it's official or unofficial. A patent applicant is considered to be
responsible for knowing it. It also doesn't matter if it's cited in another
patent or not. You can defeat a patent with it.

  The one thing that would help is a reliable date-stamp on any emails or
archives, so that no one can question whether it was *actually *available
to people in the art on that date. In that sense, your idea is worthwhile.

As for "most active IETFers hate patents and (IMO) hate their own corporate
patent lawyers too", I wrote a couple of Substck articles on this:

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it

The latter one is a practical approach to abolishing software patents.
There's no promise it'll work, but we know by now that hoping for a miracle
by the Executive or Judicial branches is futile.

There is a bill
<https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/09/05/passing-pera-assures-patent-eligibility-useful-inventions/id=166270/#:~:text=Titled%20the%20Patent%20Eligibility%20Restoration,methods%20and%20advanced%20computer%20applications.>
in the Senate that would undo the modest progress that *CLS Bank* made. So
it would be completely legitimate to ask any candidate for the Senate if he
or she supports it. You WILL get a blank "deer in the headlights" stare,
but they will at least sasign a staff member to find out what this bill is
all about. And then be ready with some kind of statement for the next time
someone asks.


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:51?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 04-Feb-24 11:30, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that
> could
> >> accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for free or
> for
> >> reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)  I have nothing more
> >> detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the surfacing of
> patent
> >> trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.
> >
> > Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH
> NONONONONONO.
>
> Ditto, and ditto.
>
> > That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.
>
> Worse than that, it would make the IETF into an evil patent pool in
> itself, with an extremely high risk of becoming a de facto cartel.
>
> Fortunately, most active IETFers hate patents and (IMO) hate their
> own corporate patent lawyers too. So we've had rather few instances
> of the standards process being held hostage to patent claims.
>
> >
> > The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely written
> by
> > Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading expert on
> standards
> > and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with us.  Scott was his
> coauthor
> > and might fill in some details.
> >
> > To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must
> disclose
> > IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with them. Most
> IETF
> > standards are either unencumbered or have free public licenses but there
> have
> > been a few with more restrictive licenses.
>
> And it says that patent claims MAY be taken into account in the decision
> to standardize something. That flexibility is important - if someone does
> show up with a patented bright idea, they are very strongly incented to
> also show up with fair licensing conditions. Otherwise, no RFC, which
> matters
> when purchasers require RFC compliance.
>
>     Brian
>
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
> >
> > Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND,
> > standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
> >
> > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Feb  3 15:49:28 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:49:28 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
Message-ID: <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>

Funny you should mention Jorge C.? I was trying to find him at a 
gathering just yesterday.? (BTW, decades ago he helped us put together 
the Boston Working Group that kinda buzzed around ICANN.)

I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls. (And I 
really liked you comment on the trustworthiness - or lack of - in 
today's LLCs that have been trained on whatever junk they can grab.? But 
more carefully trained systems are already coming along.)

And I do understand Vint's point about generating revenue (and 
demonstrating public support) to the US IRS.)

No matter the IETF's policies around standards-making documents there 
will arise copyrights and patents that someone might wish to transfer to 
a nice, tax exempt (e.g. section 501), long-lived, institutional owner - 
such as ISOC - that will make them available to the community on fair 
and reasonable terms.? (In a way we already have this, in a limited 
sense, in the regional IP address registries.)

This holding and licensing is quite distinct from IP disclosure 
obligations on IETF materials.

(As an aside: As a society we are facing a largely under-discussed issue 
of what happens to all of the digital assets a person holds when he dies 
- we certainly don't want important Internet assets to dangle in the 
hands of a probate court like the orphans in Dickens' Bleak House.? 
Things like charitable remainder trusts could help people pass useful IP 
rights to ISOC with minimal tax or probate implications.)

 ??? --karl--

On 2/3/24 2:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm 
>> that could accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses 
>> (for free or for reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)? 
>> I have nothing more detailed that that thought, but I do so much 
>> dislike the surfacing of patent trolls, always at the most 
>> inconvenient of times.
>
> Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,? GAAAAAHHHHH 
> NONONONONONO.
> That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.
>
> The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.? It was largely 
> written by Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading 
> expert on standards and IP.? We were very lucky to have him work with 
> us.? Scott was his coauthor and might fill in some details.
>
> To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must 
> disclose IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with 
> them. Most IETF standards are either unencumbered or have free public 
> licenses but there have been a few with more restrictive licenses.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
>
> Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND, 
> standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
>
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 16:04:32 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 19:04:32 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UQ-R2j=zziasp00wHJqo5pjMZPQ=OZJL4SjwvUy4d5ZA@mail.gmail.com>

good point about legacy rights, Karl.
v


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:49?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Funny you should mention Jorge C.  I was trying to find him at a
> gathering just yesterday.  (BTW, decades ago he helped us put together
> the Boston Working Group that kinda buzzed around ICANN.)
>
> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls. (And I
> really liked you comment on the trustworthiness - or lack of - in
> today's LLCs that have been trained on whatever junk they can grab.  But
> more carefully trained systems are already coming along.)
>
> And I do understand Vint's point about generating revenue (and
> demonstrating public support) to the US IRS.)
>
> No matter the IETF's policies around standards-making documents there
> will arise copyrights and patents that someone might wish to transfer to
> a nice, tax exempt (e.g. section 501), long-lived, institutional owner -
> such as ISOC - that will make them available to the community on fair
> and reasonable terms.  (In a way we already have this, in a limited
> sense, in the regional IP address registries.)
>
> This holding and licensing is quite distinct from IP disclosure
> obligations on IETF materials.
>
> (As an aside: As a society we are facing a largely under-discussed issue
> of what happens to all of the digital assets a person holds when he dies
> - we certainly don't want important Internet assets to dangle in the
> hands of a probate court like the orphans in Dickens' Bleak House.
> Things like charitable remainder trusts could help people pass useful IP
> rights to ISOC with minimal tax or probate implications.)
>
>      --karl--
>
> On 2/3/24 2:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm
> >> that could accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses
> >> (for free or for reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)
> >> I have nothing more detailed that that thought, but I do so much
> >> dislike the surfacing of patent trolls, always at the most
> >> inconvenient of times.
> >
> > Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH
> > NONONONONONO.
> > That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.
> >
> > The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely
> > written by Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading
> > expert on standards and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with
> > us.  Scott was his coauthor and might fill in some details.
> >
> > To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must
> > disclose IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with
> > them. Most IETF standards are either unencumbered or have free public
> > licenses but there have been a few with more restrictive licenses.
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
> >
> > Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND,
> > standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
> >
> > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Feb  3 16:17:31 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:17:31 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>

About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a patent fight 
that had been going on literally for 20+ years.? The Patent Office had 
issued the patent and it had been invalidated and revalidated several 
times as the lawyers battled over the decades.

That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art played 
a large role in challenging the validity of patents.? We use the Arpanet 
IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the patent (actually just 
one of many claims).? The issue of whether or not the patent was 
actually valid (even though it had alrready expired after 17 years) was 
never resolved, because the litigants settled out of court.

At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the 
apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the 
impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the 
complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for 
20+ years.? Prior art wouldn't matter.?? The first patent filed would 
rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously unknown 
(to the Examiners)? prior art.

I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually changed 
after the 2013 switch to "First To File".? It seemed that such a change 
would make filing a patent much more important to establish ownership of 
some innovation.?? It wouldn't help to search and find someone who had 
done it before, but failed to file a patent.? Whoever filed first 
legally owned the technology.

My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates technology 
(protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the shelf" for anyone to 
use.? But does the IETF (or anyone else) protect such innovations by 
filing a patent?

What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever IETF puts 
"on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?

Jack Haverty



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240203/16ec380a/attachment.asc>

From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb  3 16:28:47 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 19:28:47 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVHwO5vHLFF5+b2+BXfnv=tO1Xeo4v=z_NWSnWf2CvgTqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVHwO5vHLFF5+b2+BXfnv=tO1Xeo4v=z_NWSnWf2CvgTqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A50F12C8-1D5C-4F1C-8084-B4A8430348ED@sobco.com>

the IETF secretariat has a process which can provide that

https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/legal-request-procedures/

Scott


> On Feb 3, 2024, at 6:42?PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>  The one thing that would help is a reliable date-stamp on any emails or
> archives, so that no one can question whether it was *actually *available
> to people in the art on that date. In that sense, your idea is worthwhile.



From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb  3 16:32:27 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 19:32:27 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
 <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <A01336FC-F4CC-45AD-803D-A6E1B0C2A74E@sobco.com>

if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or more before the patent application
was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not change that - first to file just means
that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the one getting a patent on the invention

Scott



> On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a patent fight that had been going on literally for 20+ years.  The Patent Office had issued the patent and it had been invalidated and revalidated several times as the lawyers battled over the decades.
> 
> That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art played a large role in challenging the validity of patents.  We use the Arpanet IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the patent (actually just one of many claims).  The issue of whether or not the patent was actually valid (even though it had alrready expired after 17 years) was never resolved, because the litigants settled out of court.
> 
> At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for 20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)  prior art.
> 
> I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually changed after the 2013 switch to "First To File".  It seemed that such a change would make filing a patent much more important to establish ownership of some innovation.   It wouldn't help to search and find someone who had done it before, but failed to file a patent.  Whoever filed first legally owned the technology.
> 
> My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates technology (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the shelf" for anyone to use.  But does the IETF (or anyone else) protect such innovations by filing a patent?
> 
> What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever IETF puts "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 16:43:12 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:43:12 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <A01336FC-F4CC-45AD-803D-A6E1B0C2A74E@sobco.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
 <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>
 <A01336FC-F4CC-45AD-803D-A6E1B0C2A74E@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVH3gMj0qu=H-A4CwhedkMnJj7Q74k-5jwz0ZHgYpok5qw@mail.gmail.com>

Correct, Scott. First to file just eliminated "I thought of this and wrote
it in my notebook, but never published it."

Jack's statement

At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the
impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the
complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for
20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would
rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously unknown
(to the Examiners)  prior art.


is wrong. Prior art is still anything published.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:32?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or more
> before the patent application
> was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not change
> that - first to file just means
> that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the one
> getting a patent on the invention
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a patent fight
> that had been going on literally for 20+ years.  The Patent Office had
> issued the patent and it had been invalidated and revalidated several times
> as the lawyers battled over the decades.
> >
> > That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art played
> a large role in challenging the validity of patents.  We use the Arpanet
> IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the patent (actually just one
> of many claims).  The issue of whether or not the patent was actually valid
> (even though it had alrready expired after 17 years) was never resolved,
> because the litigants settled out of court.
> >
> > At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
> apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the impression I
> got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the complexity of
> finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for 20+ years.  Prior
> art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be
> invalidated by presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)  prior
> art.
> >
> > I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually changed
> after the 2013 switch to "First To File".  It seemed that such a change
> would make filing a patent much more important to establish ownership of
> some innovation.   It wouldn't help to search and find someone who had done
> it before, but failed to file a patent.  Whoever filed first legally owned
> the technology.
> >
> > My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates technology
> (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the shelf" for anyone to
> use.  But does the IETF (or anyone else) protect such innovations by filing
> a patent?
> >
> > What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever IETF puts
> "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb  3 16:44:39 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 3 Feb 2024 19:44:39 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls.

Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we offer $1 
licenses.  Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is invalid. 
Or per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us a de facto patent 
pool.  Or whatever.  Even if the suits have little merit, as I'm sure you 
know defending even the crappiest patent suit costs a fortune.  If we 
require people to indemnify us for suits related to their free patents, 
that rather defeats the whole purpose.

If someone wants to provide a free license to a patent relevant to an IETF 
standard, I believe it is adequate to put the license grant in the IPR 
declaration.

> No matter the IETF's policies around standards-making documents there will 
> arise copyrights and patents that someone might wish to transfer to a nice, 
> tax exempt (e.g. section 501), long-lived, institutional owner -

For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by saying 
so.  For an excellent example, see https://tomlehrersongs.com/disclaimer/
I realize that in some countries you can't do that, but in practice if 
you've abandoned US copyright that's a pretty strong hint you're not going 
to enforce it anywhere else.

R's,
John


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 16:51:52 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:51:52 -0800
Subject: [ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <b4dfc870-d9a4-4714-9025-f69dfeaf4a73@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6173108B-284D-4719-9D43-FC52FFD6512B@gmail.com>
 <b4dfc870-d9a4-4714-9025-f69dfeaf4a73@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHJf1yj_f8rc3BbY0dtdx3ySXz3H45c57QpQGzZRQmWCQ@mail.gmail.com>

There are a lot of statements in here, but suffice it to say that the
solution to "some scumbag patents an emerging standard" can already be
solved, IANAL but a statement about standards in the WG's charter, such
that any patents must be offered on FRAND or free license terms should do
it.

"First to File" has nothing to do with it, and neither does a 6-month
expiration rule.

What *would* make a difference is a reliable date stamp, so a lawyer can't
challenge the availability of a piece of prior art.

I was a tech advisor in Google's Patent Litigation department.  In one
case, I killed a patent belonging to Microsoft on digital maps (in Germany)
with a publication (not a patent). We went to a librarian at a university
to attest that the publication HAD been available on a given date. You
can't rely on the date printed on the journal.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:35?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 2/3/2024 1:27 PM, Ross Callon via Internet-history wrote:
> > To me the six month expiration of an internet draft, plus the public
> > availability of old expired internet drafts, is a brilliant system.
>
> As I recall, drafts became inaccessible once they expired, to emphasize
> the desire that they not be cited or otherwise use.
>
> This, predictably, was not sustainable, as demands for old drafts
> constantly occurred.  So eventually they were kept online.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Feb  3 18:24:53 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:24:53 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
 <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>

On 2/3/24 4:44 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls.
>
> Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we offer $1 
> licenses.? Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is 
> invalid. Or per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us a de 
> facto patent pool.? Or whatever.? Even if the suits have little merit, 
> as I'm sure you know defending even the crappiest patent suit costs a 
> fortune.? If we require people to indemnify us for suits related to 
> their free patents, that rather defeats the whole purpose.

In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less 
expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.

(And, of course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, I 
offer no defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in the 
absence of a defense you are required to overcome the presumption of 
validity and prove your case for invalidation." The side attacking the 
patent doesn't get a favorable judgement for nothing - they have a 
burden of proof that has to be met.)

I am hardly an expert in anti-competitive laws around the world, but 
from what I know about patent pools just waving the fear of being called 
that is not particularly scary when the licensing organization 
(hypothetically ISOC) engages in fair; open licensing with reasonably 
inexpensive, non-exclusive, and non-restrictive terms.? Such activities 
can hardly be credibly characterized as anti-competitive or manipulative 
of the marketplace.? Indeed, I think that our experiences with ARIN, 
RIPE and the other address registries, and also with ICANN, inform us 
that institutions that manage Internet related assets can operate in the 
public interest and with tolerable levels of legal risk.? (Yes, you 
heard me say it: ICANN can and and does operate in the public interest. ;-)

>
> If someone wants to provide a free license to a patent relevant to an 
> IETF standard, I believe it is adequate to put the license grant in 
> the IPR declaration.

Remember, a license grant in an IPR declaration is really nothing more 
than a bald (and potentially revocable) offer to create a license 
contract. (The GPL people have tried to create a belief that a license 
and a contract are different things - but they are not.)? A grant in a 
IETF document opens the door to lots of dispute about whether an 
enforceable agreement (a contract, a license) has been formed - there 
are all the formative issues of mutuality, revocation, acceptance, 
consideration, reliance, etc.

A transfer of a patent (or copyright or trademark) to a tax-qualified, 
long-lived entity (such as ISOC) allows considerably more flexibility as 
well as rather more solid grounds to have trust that the legal status of 
things actually is what it is believed to be.? And it largely eliminates 
the risks of uncertainty that can arise with licenses to rights that are 
held by mortal people who will eventually die and their assets 
(including license grant agreements) disseminated.

> For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by 
> saying so.

Not everyone has a libertarian view of the world; some people, perhaps 
most people, like to retain some control over their expressions.? I know 
that, speaking for myself, that I'd appreciate if the copyright rights 
to these discussions of Internet history on this list were not cast into 
the public domain (where they could be freely and even maliciously 
manipulated), but, rather, were held by an organization by something 
like ISOC or the Computer History Museum where the integrity of the 
discussions are likely to be maintained.? (I can't remember what terms 
were imposed on this list, but absent appropriate words, we each own the 
copyright to our individual postings.)

 ??? --karl--





From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Feb  3 18:32:41 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:32:41 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVH3gMj0qu=H-A4CwhedkMnJj7Q74k-5jwz0ZHgYpok5qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
 <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>
 <A01336FC-F4CC-45AD-803D-A6E1B0C2A74E@sobco.com>
 <CAFq6nVH3gMj0qu=H-A4CwhedkMnJj7Q74k-5jwz0ZHgYpok5qw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ead81f2c-cb90-4002-8b61-b3d21e7cf7eb@3kitty.org>

Interesting, thanks - that makes a bit more sense.?? First to file still 
has to consider prior art to get a patent granted.

There's still a question of what it means to "publish".? In the case I 
dealt with, we used the Arpanet IMP code to show that an algorithm used 
in the IMP was prior art.??? That code was certainly in wide use, but it 
wasn't "published" in any traditional sense (except in the code written 
in Honeywell 316 assembler).

BTW, DCEC (Defense Communications Engineering Center) patented some 
netork-related technologies (protocols, algorithms) in the early 
Internet days (early 80s), explicitly to make sure they were not 
patented later but would be always publicly available for use. Sorry I 
can't remember exactly what they patented, or what triggered them to go 
through the patent process, or who orchestrated the process.? Maybe 
someone else remembers the history.

Perhaps some government(s) organizations could similarly take on the 
role of protecting technology today?

Jack



On 2/3/24 16:43, Bob Purvy wrote:
> Correct, Scott. First to file just eliminated "I thought of this and 
> wrote it in my notebook, but never?published it."
>
> Jack's statement
>
>     At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
>     apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the
>     impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot
>     of the
>     complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for
>     20+ years.? Prior art wouldn't matter.?? The first patent filed would
>     rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously
>     unknown
>     (to the Examiners)? prior art.
>
>
> is wrong. Prior art is still anything published.
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:32?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or
>     more before the patent application
>     was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not
>     change that - first to file just means
>     that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the
>     one getting a patent on the invention
>
>     Scott
>
>
>
>     > On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history
>     <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a
>     patent fight that had been going on literally for 20+ years.? The
>     Patent Office had issued the patent and it had been invalidated
>     and revalidated several times as the lawyers battled over the decades.
>     >
>     > That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art
>     played a large role in challenging the validity of patents.? We
>     use the Arpanet IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the
>     patent (actually just one of many claims).? The issue of whether
>     or not the patent was actually valid (even though it had alrready
>     expired after 17 years) was never resolved, because the litigants
>     settled out of court.
>     >
>     > At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world
>     about the apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure,
>     and the impression I got was that the new structure would take
>     away a lot of the complexity of finding prior art and litigating a
>     patent's validity for 20+ years.? Prior art wouldn't matter.? ?The
>     first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be invalidated by
>     presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)? prior art.
>     >
>     > I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually
>     changed after the 2013 switch to "First To File".? It seemed that
>     such a change would make filing a patent much more important to
>     establish ownership of some innovation.? ?It wouldn't help to
>     search and find someone who had done it before, but failed to file
>     a patent.? Whoever filed first legally owned the technology.
>     >
>     > My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates
>     technology (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the
>     shelf" for anyone to use.? But does the IETF (or anyone else)
>     protect such innovations by filing a patent?
>     >
>     > What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever
>     IETF puts "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
>     >
>     > Jack Haverty
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Internet-history mailing list
>     > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240203/6f883542/attachment.asc>

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 18:37:51 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:37:51 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
 <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
 <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEDKAPOcYw3WtgBO7q3NMbf6t5S99Rwewq7vAM-TLe7Ng@mail.gmail.com>

Karl, I don't disagree with most of this. However:

*> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less*







*expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.> (And, of course,
there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, Ioffer no defense
except to remind you (and the court) that even in theabsence of a defense
you are required to overcome the presumption ofvalidity and prove your case
for invalidation." The side attacking thepatent doesn't get a favorable
judgement for nothing - they have aburden of proof that has to be met.)*

That's wrong. If you hold a patent and someone files an IPR on it, your
legal fees to rebut their assertions will be about equal to theirs.

You may be more likely to win, for the reasons you stated, but that doesn't
make it cheaper.



On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:25?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 2/3/24 4:44 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls.
> >
> > Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we offer $1
> > licenses.  Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is
> > invalid. Or per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us a de
> > facto patent pool.  Or whatever.  Even if the suits have little merit,
> > as I'm sure you know defending even the crappiest patent suit costs a
> > fortune.  If we require people to indemnify us for suits related to
> > their free patents, that rather defeats the whole purpose.
>
> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less
> expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.
>
> (And, of course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, I
> offer no defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in the
> absence of a defense you are required to overcome the presumption of
> validity and prove your case for invalidation." The side attacking the
> patent doesn't get a favorable judgement for nothing - they have a
> burden of proof that has to be met.)
>
> I am hardly an expert in anti-competitive laws around the world, but
> from what I know about patent pools just waving the fear of being called
> that is not particularly scary when the licensing organization
> (hypothetically ISOC) engages in fair; open licensing with reasonably
> inexpensive, non-exclusive, and non-restrictive terms.  Such activities
> can hardly be credibly characterized as anti-competitive or manipulative
> of the marketplace.  Indeed, I think that our experiences with ARIN,
> RIPE and the other address registries, and also with ICANN, inform us
> that institutions that manage Internet related assets can operate in the
> public interest and with tolerable levels of legal risk.  (Yes, you
> heard me say it: ICANN can and and does operate in the public interest. ;-)
>
> >
> > If someone wants to provide a free license to a patent relevant to an
> > IETF standard, I believe it is adequate to put the license grant in
> > the IPR declaration.
>
> Remember, a license grant in an IPR declaration is really nothing more
> than a bald (and potentially revocable) offer to create a license
> contract. (The GPL people have tried to create a belief that a license
> and a contract are different things - but they are not.)  A grant in a
> IETF document opens the door to lots of dispute about whether an
> enforceable agreement (a contract, a license) has been formed - there
> are all the formative issues of mutuality, revocation, acceptance,
> consideration, reliance, etc.
>
> A transfer of a patent (or copyright or trademark) to a tax-qualified,
> long-lived entity (such as ISOC) allows considerably more flexibility as
> well as rather more solid grounds to have trust that the legal status of
> things actually is what it is believed to be.  And it largely eliminates
> the risks of uncertainty that can arise with licenses to rights that are
> held by mortal people who will eventually die and their assets
> (including license grant agreements) disseminated.
>
> > For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by
> > saying so.
>
> Not everyone has a libertarian view of the world; some people, perhaps
> most people, like to retain some control over their expressions.  I know
> that, speaking for myself, that I'd appreciate if the copyright rights
> to these discussions of Internet history on this list were not cast into
> the public domain (where they could be freely and even maliciously
> manipulated), but, rather, were held by an organization by something
> like ISOC or the Computer History Museum where the integrity of the
> discussions are likely to be maintained.  (I can't remember what terms
> were imposed on this list, but absent appropriate words, we each own the
> copyright to our individual postings.)
>
>      --karl--
>
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 18:45:33 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:45:33 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <ead81f2c-cb90-4002-8b61-b3d21e7cf7eb@3kitty.org>
References: <86c5956c-8362-d74f-fe81-3fa87160c893@iecc.com>
 <3429143c-f26b-5c9c-7719-07acff212b39@gmail.com>
 <9a99ac47-e11c-4a39-bb09-9aec45647a08@3kitty.org>
 <A01336FC-F4CC-45AD-803D-A6E1B0C2A74E@sobco.com>
 <CAFq6nVH3gMj0qu=H-A4CwhedkMnJj7Q74k-5jwz0ZHgYpok5qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ead81f2c-cb90-4002-8b61-b3d21e7cf7eb@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHGF6rGGL7OBMkL-7sCK1coCe5nF=u8VuiphVvHithQMA@mail.gmail.com>

Jack, we dealt with this sort of thing all the time at Google. What is and
is not "prior art" : as lawyers say, *it depends.*

sometimes an old reference uses different words for concepts that we would
consider "the same thing."  The words shouldn't matter, but they do. You
have a much harder time proving that an old reference is still relevant.

At Google, we had a special room where we kept old hardware and software.
Having a working model of something old is really, really powerful; also
really hard to pull off! We actually went to this place
<https://www.themade.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA5fetBhC9ARIsAP1UMgGWtqS33XvZKBLiAbeQTpYvjnE1bcFaerQsbNsJkNRwf4Ry89yvFuMaAolYEALw_wcB>in
Oakland and had them on retainer! Old game hardware is perfectly valid as
prior art, and they have lots of it.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:32?PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> Interesting, thanks - that makes a bit more sense.   First to file still
> has to consider prior art to get a patent granted.
>
> There's still a question of what it means to "publish".  In the case I
> dealt with, we used the Arpanet IMP code to show that an algorithm used in
> the IMP was prior art.    That code was certainly in wide use, but it
> wasn't "published" in any traditional sense (except in the code written in
> Honeywell 316 assembler).
>
> BTW, DCEC (Defense Communications Engineering Center) patented some
> netork-related technologies (protocols, algorithms) in the early Internet
> days (early 80s), explicitly to make sure they were not patented later but
> would be always publicly available for use.   Sorry I can't remember
> exactly what they patented, or what triggered them to go through the patent
> process, or who orchestrated the process.  Maybe someone else remembers the
> history.
>
> Perhaps some government(s) organizations could similarly take on the role
> of protecting technology today?
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> On 2/3/24 16:43, Bob Purvy wrote:
>
> Correct, Scott. First to file just eliminated "I thought of this and wrote
> it in my notebook, but never published it."
>
> Jack's statement
>
> At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
> apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the
> impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the
> complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for
> 20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would
> rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously unknown
> (to the Examiners)  prior art.
>
>
> is wrong. Prior art is still anything published.
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:32?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or more
>> before the patent application
>> was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not change
>> that - first to file just means
>> that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the one
>> getting a patent on the invention
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a patent
>> fight that had been going on literally for 20+ years.  The Patent Office
>> had issued the patent and it had been invalidated and revalidated several
>> times as the lawyers battled over the decades.
>> >
>> > That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art played
>> a large role in challenging the validity of patents.  We use the Arpanet
>> IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the patent (actually just one
>> of many claims).  The issue of whether or not the patent was actually valid
>> (even though it had alrready expired after 17 years) was never resolved,
>> because the litigants settled out of court.
>> >
>> > At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
>> apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the impression I
>> got was that the new structure would take away a lot of the complexity of
>> finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for 20+ years.  Prior
>> art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be
>> invalidated by presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)  prior
>> art.
>> >
>> > I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually changed
>> after the 2013 switch to "First To File".  It seemed that such a change
>> would make filing a patent much more important to establish ownership of
>> some innovation.   It wouldn't help to search and find someone who had done
>> it before, but failed to file a patent.  Whoever filed first legally owned
>> the technology.
>> >
>> > My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates
>> technology (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the shelf" for
>> anyone to use.  But does the IETF (or anyone else) protect such innovations
>> by filing a patent?
>> >
>> > What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever IETF puts
>> "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
>> >
>> > Jack Haverty
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Internet-history mailing list
>> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Feb  3 18:48:34 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:48:34 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEDKAPOcYw3WtgBO7q3NMbf6t5S99Rwewq7vAM-TLe7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
 <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
 <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
 <CAFq6nVEDKAPOcYw3WtgBO7q3NMbf6t5S99Rwewq7vAM-TLe7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fe2587bc-64e3-4dd7-a1f4-14a38a32dddd@iwl.com>

Filing a one page response that says "I offer no argument or evidence in 
defense but point out that the opposition has the burden to overcome the 
presumption of validity (citing 35 U.S. Code ? 282)" is rather quick, 
easy, and inexpensive.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282:

"A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in 
independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed 
valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or 
multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent 
upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent 
or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity."

It always nice at trial or in an administrative proceeding to have a 
presumption in your favor and a the burden of proof and burden of going 
forward on the opposing party. ;-)

 ??? --karl--

On 2/3/24 6:37 PM, Bob Purvy wrote:
> Karl, I don't disagree with most of this. However:
>
> /> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less/
> /expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.
>
> > (And, of course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, I
> offer no defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in the
> absence of a defense you are required to overcome the presumption of
> validity and prove your case for invalidation." The side attacking the
> patent doesn't get a favorable judgement for nothing - they have a
> burden of proof that has to be met.)/
>
> That's wrong. If you hold a patent and someone files an IPR on it, 
> your legal fees to rebut their assertions will be about equal to theirs.
>
> You may be more likely to win, for the reasons?you stated, but that 
> doesn't make it cheaper.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:25?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     On 2/3/24 4:44 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>     > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>     >> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls.
>     >
>     > Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we
>     offer $1
>     > licenses.? Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is
>     > invalid. Or per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us
>     a de
>     > facto patent pool.? Or whatever.? Even if the suits have little
>     merit,
>     > as I'm sure you know defending even the crappiest patent suit
>     costs a
>     > fortune.? If we require people to indemnify us for suits related to
>     > their free patents, that rather defeats the whole purpose.
>
>     In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less
>     expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.
>
>     (And, of course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying
>     "OK, I
>     offer no defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in
>     the
>     absence of a defense you are required to overcome the presumption of
>     validity and prove your case for invalidation." The side attacking
>     the
>     patent doesn't get a favorable judgement for nothing - they have a
>     burden of proof that has to be met.)
>
>     I am hardly an expert in anti-competitive laws around the world, but
>     from what I know about patent pools just waving the fear of being
>     called
>     that is not particularly scary when the licensing organization
>     (hypothetically ISOC) engages in fair; open licensing with reasonably
>     inexpensive, non-exclusive, and non-restrictive terms.? Such
>     activities
>     can hardly be credibly characterized as anti-competitive or
>     manipulative
>     of the marketplace.? Indeed, I think that our experiences with ARIN,
>     RIPE and the other address registries, and also with ICANN, inform us
>     that institutions that manage Internet related assets can operate
>     in the
>     public interest and with tolerable levels of legal risk. (Yes, you
>     heard me say it: ICANN can and and does operate in the public
>     interest. ;-)
>
>     >
>     > If someone wants to provide a free license to a patent relevant
>     to an
>     > IETF standard, I believe it is adequate to put the license grant in
>     > the IPR declaration.
>
>     Remember, a license grant in an IPR declaration is really nothing
>     more
>     than a bald (and potentially revocable) offer to create a license
>     contract. (The GPL people have tried to create a belief that a
>     license
>     and a contract are different things - but they are not.)? A grant
>     in a
>     IETF document opens the door to lots of dispute about whether an
>     enforceable agreement (a contract, a license) has been formed - there
>     are all the formative issues of mutuality, revocation, acceptance,
>     consideration, reliance, etc.
>
>     A transfer of a patent (or copyright or trademark) to a
>     tax-qualified,
>     long-lived entity (such as ISOC) allows considerably more
>     flexibility as
>     well as rather more solid grounds to have trust that the legal
>     status of
>     things actually is what it is believed to be.? And it largely
>     eliminates
>     the risks of uncertainty that can arise with licenses to rights
>     that are
>     held by mortal people who will eventually die and their assets
>     (including license grant agreements) disseminated.
>
>     > For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by
>     > saying so.
>
>     Not everyone has a libertarian view of the world; some people,
>     perhaps
>     most people, like to retain some control over their expressions.?
>     I know
>     that, speaking for myself, that I'd appreciate if the copyright
>     rights
>     to these discussions of Internet history on this list were not
>     cast into
>     the public domain (where they could be freely and even maliciously
>     manipulated), but, rather, were held by an organization by something
>     like ISOC or the Computer History Museum where the integrity of the
>     discussions are likely to be maintained.? (I can't remember what
>     terms
>     were imposed on this list, but absent appropriate words, we each
>     own the
>     copyright to our individual postings.)
>
>     ???? --karl--
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Feb  3 19:02:32 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 19:02:32 -0800
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <fe2587bc-64e3-4dd7-a1f4-14a38a32dddd@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
 <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
 <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
 <CAFq6nVEDKAPOcYw3WtgBO7q3NMbf6t5S99Rwewq7vAM-TLe7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe2587bc-64e3-4dd7-a1f4-14a38a32dddd@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEkFx4XdcYZr=yT=rQQBQ3Mh2r3v_zVxLNhS64YzYs=2Q@mail.gmail.com>

the other side *will* present a detailed brief about how your patent is
invalid. See what your lawyer thinks about not rebutting it. I'll bow to
their superior expertise.

On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:48?PM Karl Auerbach <karl at iwl.com> wrote:

> Filing a one page response that says "I offer no argument or evidence in
> defense but point out that the opposition has the burden to overcome the
> presumption of validity (citing 35 U.S. Code ? 282)" is rather quick, easy,
> and inexpensive.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/282:
>
> "A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in
> independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid
> independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple
> dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an
> invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any
> claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity."
>
> It always nice at trial or in an administrative proceeding to have a
> presumption in your favor and a the burden of proof and burden of going
> forward on the opposing party. ;-)
>
>     --karl--
> On 2/3/24 6:37 PM, Bob Purvy wrote:
>
> Karl, I don't disagree with most of this. However:
>
> *> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one. > (And, of
> course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, I offer no
> defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in the absence of a
> defense you are required to overcome the presumption of validity and prove
> your case for invalidation." The side attacking the patent doesn't get a
> favorable judgement for nothing - they have a burden of proof that has to
> be met.)*
>
> That's wrong. If you hold a patent and someone files an IPR on it, your
> legal fees to rebut their assertions will be about equal to theirs.
>
> You may be more likely to win, for the reasons you stated, but that
> doesn't make it cheaper.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:25?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/24 4:44 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> >> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls.
>> >
>> > Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we offer $1
>> > licenses.  Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is
>> > invalid. Or per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us a de
>> > facto patent pool.  Or whatever.  Even if the suits have little merit,
>> > as I'm sure you know defending even the crappiest patent suit costs a
>> > fortune.  If we require people to indemnify us for suits related to
>> > their free patents, that rather defeats the whole purpose.
>>
>> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less
>> expensive to defend an issued patent than to attack one.
>>
>> (And, of course, there is the relatively-cheap strategy of saying "OK, I
>> offer no defense except to remind you (and the court) that even in the
>> absence of a defense you are required to overcome the presumption of
>> validity and prove your case for invalidation." The side attacking the
>> patent doesn't get a favorable judgement for nothing - they have a
>> burden of proof that has to be met.)
>>
>> I am hardly an expert in anti-competitive laws around the world, but
>> from what I know about patent pools just waving the fear of being called
>> that is not particularly scary when the licensing organization
>> (hypothetically ISOC) engages in fair; open licensing with reasonably
>> inexpensive, non-exclusive, and non-restrictive terms.  Such activities
>> can hardly be credibly characterized as anti-competitive or manipulative
>> of the marketplace.  Indeed, I think that our experiences with ARIN,
>> RIPE and the other address registries, and also with ICANN, inform us
>> that institutions that manage Internet related assets can operate in the
>> public interest and with tolerable levels of legal risk.  (Yes, you
>> heard me say it: ICANN can and and does operate in the public interest.
>> ;-)
>>
>> >
>> > If someone wants to provide a free license to a patent relevant to an
>> > IETF standard, I believe it is adequate to put the license grant in
>> > the IPR declaration.
>>
>> Remember, a license grant in an IPR declaration is really nothing more
>> than a bald (and potentially revocable) offer to create a license
>> contract. (The GPL people have tried to create a belief that a license
>> and a contract are different things - but they are not.)  A grant in a
>> IETF document opens the door to lots of dispute about whether an
>> enforceable agreement (a contract, a license) has been formed - there
>> are all the formative issues of mutuality, revocation, acceptance,
>> consideration, reliance, etc.
>>
>> A transfer of a patent (or copyright or trademark) to a tax-qualified,
>> long-lived entity (such as ISOC) allows considerably more flexibility as
>> well as rather more solid grounds to have trust that the legal status of
>> things actually is what it is believed to be.  And it largely eliminates
>> the risks of uncertainty that can arise with licenses to rights that are
>> held by mortal people who will eventually die and their assets
>> (including license grant agreements) disseminated.
>>
>> > For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by
>> > saying so.
>>
>> Not everyone has a libertarian view of the world; some people, perhaps
>> most people, like to retain some control over their expressions.  I know
>> that, speaking for myself, that I'd appreciate if the copyright rights
>> to these discussions of Internet history on this list were not cast into
>> the public domain (where they could be freely and even maliciously
>> manipulated), but, rather, were held by an organization by something
>> like ISOC or the Computer History Museum where the integrity of the
>> discussions are likely to be maintained.  (I can't remember what terms
>> were imposed on this list, but absent appropriate words, we each own the
>> copyright to our individual postings.)
>>
>>      --karl--
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb  3 19:24:23 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 3 Feb 2024 22:24:23 -0500
Subject: [ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <17139066-700c-3ece-0227-2b9a372e1a4a@johnlevine.com>
 <595299a1-32f1-4dca-8a81-cb6d3537ade8@iwl.com>
 <321c67a2-b2b1-bbef-3da7-a46e8a321950@iecc.com>
 <b729688d-c5ef-40fa-b9c7-9ac05179d19d@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <fda2e803-0bc5-7a94-4f54-27abeb1e0fdd@iecc.com>

>> Let's say someone gives us (ISOC, whoever) a patent, and we offer $1 
>> licenses.? Then someone else shows up and claims our patent is invalid. Or 
>> per Brian, the way we collected the patents makes us a de facto patent 
>> pool.? Or whatever.? Even if the suits have little merit, as I'm sure you 
>> know defending even the crappiest patent suit costs a fortune.? If we 
>> require people to indemnify us for suits related to their free patents, 
>> that rather defeats the whole purpose.
>
> In general, because of presumptive validity of claims, it is less expensive 
> to defend an issued patent than to attack one.

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes.  If you want to give 
everyone a free license to your patent, just stop paying the maintenance 
fees and abandon it.  If you want to give limited licenses, that's fine, 
but it's up to you to enforce the patent against people outside the 
license terms, not anyone else.  Why in the world would ISOC want to get 
involved in this stuff?  The potential cost is huge, the practical benefit 
to them and to standards users minimal.

>> For copyrights, in the US you can abandon copyright basically by saying so.
>
> Not everyone has a libertarian view of the world; some people, perhaps most 
> people, like to retain some control over their expressions.? I know that, 
> speaking for myself, that I'd appreciate if the copyright rights to these 
> discussions of Internet history on this list were not cast into the public 
> domain (where they could be freely and even maliciously manipulated), but, 
> rather, were held by an organization by something like ISOC or the Computer 
> History Museum where the integrity of the discussions are likely to be 
> maintained.

Too late:

  By posting material, the posting party warrants and represents that they
  own the copyright with respect to such material or has received
  permission  from the copyright owner. In addition, the posting party grants the
  Internet Society and users of this site the nonexclusive right and
  license to display, copy, publish, distribute, transmit, print, and use such
  information or other material.

  https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

I am not aware of any case law in which someone enforced a copyright claim 
on messages contributed to generally accessible web sites or mailing 
lists.  Yes, I'm aware of the OpenAI suits but the ones from the authors 
are stupid, and the one from the Times has quite different factual 
assertions.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From gnu at toad.com  Sun Feb  4 09:12:22 2024
From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2024 09:12:22 -0800
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>

The conflict of interest between public stewards of resources that
should be public, versus the private self-interest of the people
involved in that stewardship, is ancient and ongoing.  In the Internet
community it is visible everywhere, from the IETF vs. vendors, to ISOC
vs. foo.org users, to the ICANN's secretariat, lawyers, sinecure jobs,
and junkets.  As well as in people trying to tilt the patent and
copyright laws in courts and in Congress to favor themselves.  And in
the operation of the US Congress itself.  Google spends billions to
pitch itself so the public thinks of it as Santa Claus giving away free
resources for public benefit, while making tens of billions for itself.

What was that quote about if you like sausage, don't look inside a
sausage factory?

Tom Lehrer made great songs, and releasing them for the public domain in
his later life was a good move that will help his legacy stay alive
after he's gone.  The US copyright system used to do this automatically
after 28 years, back when it was structured to benefit the public.

Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service that
> they could be compensated for doing.

There are other places such as the Software Freedom Conservancy that
hold patents and copyrights for free software projects that don't have
their own nonprofit infrastructure.

In general it's better to have dozens of such places.  If one place
accumulates a critical mass of valuable intellectual property, it will
end up attacked, perhaps sneakily, to obtain control of it and then use
that monopoly to make money unjustly.  If there are dozens, and one
becomes incompetent or self-interested, the whole world won't get
affected, just a little corner of it.

>                                       As you know, ISOC has a challenge
> demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS Public
> Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
> comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a fraction
> of the PIR income as "public".

The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions of
dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
(I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)

Hearing a complaint about how that large flow of money from overpriced
.org domains makes it hard for them to stay a legal nonprofit (*) would
be amusing, except for what happened in between.

ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
world.  It took a large effort, led by people with .org domains
(including EFF.org) who didn't want to suffer so ISOC could profit, to
derail that plan.  Ultimately, self-interest scrutiny by the California
attorney general's office that regulates nonprofits (including ICANN
itself) borked the deal.  See:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry#Proposed_sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry

If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom
and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing
its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.

	John
	
PS: (*) I'm on the board of ARDC.net, a small nonprofit which got a
$100M windfall from the ham-radio 44/8.  We couldn't honestly claim at
that point that the public was our source of support.  We became a
private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public
charity.  ISOC could do the same.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains
more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own
self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen.
Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general
public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn't
that be a great outcome?


From vint at google.com  Sun Feb  4 10:01:42 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 13:01:42 -0500
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>

Bob, the PTO supports non-profits like the National Science and Technology
Medals Foundation so at least some of that income is being re-injected into
worthy causes.

v


On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 12:47?PM Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Only one comment, which not everyone realizes:
>
> *" Santa Claus giving away free resources for public benefit, **
>
> The PTO runs at a huge profit, giving away (usually) worthless pieces of
> paper. It's not allowed to keep that money and use it to improve patent
> quality, hire more examiners, or do anything valuable. Instead, it just
> flows straight to the Treasury.
>
> This is 10+ year old information, so it's possible it's out of date.
>
> *Finally, another reminder: There's a bill in the Senate
> <https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2140/text#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(06%2F22%2F2023)&text=To%20amend%20title%2035%2C%20United,eligibility%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.>that
> would undo the modest progress that CLS Bank v. Alice made towards getting
> rid of software patents. Write your Senator and ask any Senate candidates
> to oppose it.*
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:12?AM John Gilmore via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> The conflict of interest between public stewards of resources that
>> should be public, versus the private self-interest of the people
>> involved in that stewardship, is ancient and ongoing.  In the Internet
>> community it is visible everywhere, from the IETF vs. vendors, to ISOC
>> vs. foo.org users, to the ICANN's secretariat, lawyers, sinecure jobs,
>> and junkets.  As well as in people trying to tilt the patent and
>> copyright laws in courts and in Congress to favor themselves.  And in
>> the operation of the US Congress itself.  Google spends billions to
>> pitch itself so the public thinks of it as Santa Claus giving away free
>> resources for public benefit, while making tens of billions for itself.
>>
>> What was that quote about if you like sausage, don't look inside a
>> sausage factory?
>>
>> Tom Lehrer made great songs, and releasing them for the public domain in
>> his later life was a good move that will help his legacy stay alive
>> after he's gone.  The US copyright system used to do this automatically
>> after 28 years, back when it was structured to benefit the public.
>>
>> Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> > Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service that
>> > they could be compensated for doing.
>>
>> There are other places such as the Software Freedom Conservancy that
>> hold patents and copyrights for free software projects that don't have
>> their own nonprofit infrastructure.
>>
>> In general it's better to have dozens of such places.  If one place
>> accumulates a critical mass of valuable intellectual property, it will
>> end up attacked, perhaps sneakily, to obtain control of it and then use
>> that monopoly to make money unjustly.  If there are dozens, and one
>> becomes incompetent or self-interested, the whole world won't get
>> affected, just a little corner of it.
>>
>> >                                       As you know, ISOC has a challenge
>> > demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS
>> Public
>> > Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
>> > comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a
>> fraction
>> > of the PIR income as "public".
>>
>> The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions of
>> dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
>> Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
>> (I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
>> raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)
>>
>> Hearing a complaint about how that large flow of money from overpriced
>> .org domains makes it hard for them to stay a legal nonprofit (*) would
>> be amusing, except for what happened in between.
>>
>> ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
>> private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
>> had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
>> The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
>> then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
>> world.  It took a large effort, led by people with .org domains
>> (including EFF.org) who didn't want to suffer so ISOC could profit, to
>> derail that plan.  Ultimately, self-interest scrutiny by the California
>> attorney general's office that regulates nonprofits (including ICANN
>> itself) borked the deal.  See:
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry#Proposed_sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry
>>
>> If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom
>> and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing
>> its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.
>>
>>         John
>>
>> PS: (*) I'm on the board of ARDC.net, a small nonprofit which got a
>> $100M windfall from the ham-radio 44/8.  We couldn't honestly claim at
>> that point that the public was our source of support.  We became a
>> private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public
>> charity.  ISOC could do the same.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains
>> more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own
>> self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen.
>> Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general
>> public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn't
>> that be a great outcome?
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>

-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb  4 11:31:19 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Feb 2024 14:31:19 -0500
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>

It appears that John Gilmore via Internet-history <gnu at toad.com> said:
>The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions of
>dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
>Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
>(I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
>raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)

I suppose, but since the alternative was to leave it with Verisign,
and it meant the IETF no longer had to worry about running out of
money, why not.

>ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
>private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
>had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
>The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
>then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
>world. ...

I was on the ISOC board at the time, and that is malicious bullshit.
Unfortunately, the prime bullshit purveyor was EFF (who apparently
thought it would be good for their own fundraising) which is why I'll
never be giving them a dime.

ISOC's dependence on an ICANN contracted registry is a huge conflict
of interest, and ISOC and the Internet would be better off if ISOC
were fully independent of ICANN. The stuff about price increases is
self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who knows how gTLD pricing works
-- a large price increase would just make people prepay for a few
years at the old price, giving them time to switch to a different TLD.

So no, they weren't going to do that. The buyer's backers were low
profile rich investors looking for cashflow and diversification. PIRs
current pricing would have done that just fine, paying them about 5%
in an era where bonds paid 2%.

It was also quite remarkable how many people have a weird idea that
.ORG is magic, that it's the only place that non-profits can get a
domain, which it isn't, or that all or even most of the registrants
are non-profits, which they aren't. But we grossly underestimated both
the magical thinking and the vehemence and bad faith of the
opposition, and the stupendous PR incompetence of the buyer, so ISOC
is stuck with PIR forever.

R's,
John


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun Feb  4 12:35:33 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:35:33 -0800
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>

Looking at the world from the other end of the spectrum from the 
corporate/government...

Today, if an engineer invents something, and wants to make some money 
from that invention or even give it away for general public benefit, how 
would you accomplish that?

 From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent 
battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent 
system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual with 
deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of battle 
in the system.

In addition, it seemed that there was no individual or organization 
inside "the system" that had any incentive to ever resolve a patent 
dispute, except of course the litigants.? Patent lawyers, judges, PTO 
examiners, experts, legal clerks, corporate patent departments, et al 
have job security as long as the battles rage on.

Getting back to internet history...

I was surprised when I discovered the networking patent that DCEC had 
secured, and arranged for it to be freely usable by anyone. Then it 
occurred to me that perhaps their work was part of some larger plan.? It 
meshed in nicely with other events of the day (1980s).? For example, 
NIST had created a TCP testing program, DoD had changed its procurement 
policies to require TCP to be implemented in all its relevant purchases, 
ARPA had spent considerable funds creating implementations of TCP and 
making them freely available and, unlike OSI, making all the related 
documentation free for public use.?? DCA had orchestrated a complex 
migration of its installed base from Arpanet (NCP) to Internet (TCP).? 
Probably there were other such actions that I don't remember or never 
knew about at the time.

Was all that effort across many different organizations planned and 
coordinated?

Governments are good at making plans, generating documents, and 
establishing policies.? Back in the 80s, there was a significant US 
program called "GOSIP", which I think stood for "Government OSI Plan".?? 
It laid out the plan for conversion of the US government communications 
from a melange of technologies, including the 'TCP Experiment", into a 
new communications architecture based on OSI.

That of course never happened.?? TCP won.? But was there some "GIP", or 
"Government Internet Plan" that drove all of the decisions made within 
organizations such as ARPA, DoD, NIST, NSF, et al and acted as a "Plan 
B" to the GOSIP vision?? Or was all of that just coincidental decisions 
by various people inside parts of the US government?

There's a lot of historical record of the development of technology - 
protocols etc., but I haven't stumbled across much concerning the 
"people behind the curtain" making the Internet happen.?? For example, 
was the DCEC effort to secure patents on some Internet-related 
technology a result of some DoD directive??? Or was it just that someone 
(Ed Cain?? Bob Lyons?) that just decided it was a good idea and did it 
"under the radar"?

Now that the Internet long ago grew beyond its role as a DoD Experiment, 
I wouldn't expect pieces of DoD (such as DCEC) to be responsible for 
"making the Internet happen".?? It's a global and international task 
now.? But who inherited the role to make the Internet happen?

Jack Haverty


On 2/4/24 10:01, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> Bob, the PTO supports non-profits like the National Science and Technology
> Medals Foundation so at least some of that income is being re-injected into
> worthy causes.
>
> v
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 12:47?PM Bob Purvy<bpurvy at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Only one comment, which not everyone realizes:
>>
>> *" Santa Claus giving away free resources for public benefit, **
>>
>> The PTO runs at a huge profit, giving away (usually) worthless pieces of
>> paper. It's not allowed to keep that money and use it to improve patent
>> quality, hire more examiners, or do anything valuable. Instead, it just
>> flows straight to the Treasury.
>>
>> This is 10+ year old information, so it's possible it's out of date.
>>
>> *Finally, another reminder: There's a bill in the Senate
>> <https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2140/text#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(06%2F22%2F2023)&text=To%20amend%20title%2035%2C%20United,eligibility%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.>that
>> would undo the modest progress that CLS Bank v. Alice made towards getting
>> rid of software patents. Write your Senator and ask any Senate candidates
>> to oppose it.*
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:12?AM John Gilmore via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The conflict of interest between public stewards of resources that
>>> should be public, versus the private self-interest of the people
>>> involved in that stewardship, is ancient and ongoing.  In the Internet
>>> community it is visible everywhere, from the IETF vs. vendors, to ISOC
>>> vs. foo.org users, to the ICANN's secretariat, lawyers, sinecure jobs,
>>> and junkets.  As well as in people trying to tilt the patent and
>>> copyright laws in courts and in Congress to favor themselves.  And in
>>> the operation of the US Congress itself.  Google spends billions to
>>> pitch itself so the public thinks of it as Santa Claus giving away free
>>> resources for public benefit, while making tens of billions for itself.
>>>
>>> What was that quote about if you like sausage, don't look inside a
>>> sausage factory?
>>>
>>> Tom Lehrer made great songs, and releasing them for the public domain in
>>> his later life was a good move that will help his legacy stay alive
>>> after he's gone.  The US copyright system used to do this automatically
>>> after 28 years, back when it was structured to benefit the public.
>>>
>>> Vint Cerf via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>> Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service that
>>>> they could be compensated for doing.
>>> There are other places such as the Software Freedom Conservancy that
>>> hold patents and copyrights for free software projects that don't have
>>> their own nonprofit infrastructure.
>>>
>>> In general it's better to have dozens of such places.  If one place
>>> accumulates a critical mass of valuable intellectual property, it will
>>> end up attacked, perhaps sneakily, to obtain control of it and then use
>>> that monopoly to make money unjustly.  If there are dozens, and one
>>> becomes incompetent or self-interested, the whole world won't get
>>> affected, just a little corner of it.
>>>
>>>>                                        As you know, ISOC has a challenge
>>>> demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS
>>> Public
>>>> Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
>>>> comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a
>>> fraction
>>>> of the PIR income as "public".
>>> The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions of
>>> dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
>>> Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
>>> (I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
>>> raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)
>>>
>>> Hearing a complaint about how that large flow of money from overpriced
>>> .org domains makes it hard for them to stay a legal nonprofit (*) would
>>> be amusing, except for what happened in between.
>>>
>>> ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
>>> private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
>>> had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
>>> The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
>>> then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
>>> world.  It took a large effort, led by people with .org domains
>>> (including EFF.org) who didn't want to suffer so ISOC could profit, to
>>> derail that plan.  Ultimately, self-interest scrutiny by the California
>>> attorney general's office that regulates nonprofits (including ICANN
>>> itself) borked the deal.  See:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry#Proposed_sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry
>>>
>>> If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom
>>> and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing
>>> its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.
>>>
>>>          John
>>>
>>> PS: (*) I'm on the board of ARDC.net, a small nonprofit which got a
>>> $100M windfall from the ham-radio 44/8.  We couldn't honestly claim at
>>> that point that the public was our source of support.  We became a
>>> private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public
>>> charity.  ISOC could do the same.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains
>>> more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own
>>> self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen.
>>> Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general
>>> public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn't
>>> that be a great outcome?
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240204/f825b222/attachment.asc>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Feb  4 12:47:23 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:47:23 -0800
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <ad8d3dfc-c58e-43ee-92d5-4bb1a15560d8@dcrocker.net>

On 2/4/2024 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Was all that effort across many different organizations planned and 
> coordinated?
> ...
> But was there some "GIP", or "Government Internet Plan" that drove all 
> of the decisions made within organizations such as ARPA, DoD, NIST, 
> NSF, et al and acted as a "Plan B" to the GOSIP vision?

I was not in the middle of TCP's creation or development but was around 
some early 'promotion' activities and latter 'solidifying' activities.? 
CSNet > NSFNet early, and then commercialization later.

My impression is that there was never an integrated 'government' plan', 
but rather there was a set of distributed efforts by various folk? -- 
some within the US government and some not -- making independent decisions.

It's not as if people didn't know each other, but from my relatively 
outsider vantage point it felt much more like incremental adoption of 
complementary goals.? Individuals in different positions seeing an 
opportunity to make something useful happen and taking that 
opportunity.? Both with the underlying tech and with operational 
deployment and use of it.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From craig at tereschau.net  Sun Feb  4 13:27:18 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 14:27:18 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [xbbn] Sad news about Mike Brescia
In-Reply-To: <532142FB-7FB8-412B-9A1E-B4AE5B99AEEB@sunsetharrier.com>
References: <532142FB-7FB8-412B-9A1E-B4AE5B99AEEB@sunsetharrier.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CcX4TR95Pg=b1c228Fpr0JzWd_noy1d=OHfvAdxE4Efcg@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Claudio Topolcic <claudio@*****>
Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:13?PM
Subject: [xbbn] Sad news about Mike Brescia
To: <xbbn@*****>



Folks,

I am very sorry to relay that Mike Brescia died early this morning. He had
some kind of disseminated abdominal cancer that was diagnosed at a late
stage. Treatment was not found to be effective so they could only make him
comfortable.

I had had not known about it earlier, and when I communicated with him a
couple of weeks ago he invited me to his house. Last Tuesday he was very
sick, but he was the old Mike Brescia that we have known for so long, and
we had a good time together. His wife Ruth said that he got worse later in
the week. I am very glad I got to see him when I did.

He did not seem to want me to distribute this at the time, so I kept it to
myself. But now Ruth asked me to pass this information on to his other
friends at BBN. He is at Douglas Funeral Home in Lexington. Ruth said they
are planning a memorial and we can get information about the timing from
the funeral home. But if I learn anything I will send another email.

Sorry,
Claudio



-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Feb  4 13:44:13 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:44:13 +1300
Subject: [ih] Who was behind the curtain? [was: patents and public
 stewardship]
In-Reply-To: <ad8d3dfc-c58e-43ee-92d5-4bb1a15560d8@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
 <ad8d3dfc-c58e-43ee-92d5-4bb1a15560d8@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <41babc89-5c7f-8ead-3083-1beff79bb6f5@gmail.com>

On 05-Feb-24 09:47, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> Was all that effort across many different organizations planned and
>> coordinated?
>> ...
>> But was there some "GIP", or "Government Internet Plan" that drove all
>> of the decisions made within organizations such as ARPA, DoD, NIST,
>> NSF, et al and acted as a "Plan B" to the GOSIP vision?
> 
> I was not in the middle of TCP's creation or development but was around
> some early 'promotion' activities and latter 'solidifying' activities.
> CSNet > NSFNet early, and then commercialization later.
> 
> My impression is that there was never an integrated 'government' plan',
> but rather there was a set of distributed efforts by various folk? --
> some within the US government and some not -- making independent decisions.
> 
> It's not as if people didn't know each other, but from my relatively
> outsider vantage point it felt much more like incremental adoption of
> complementary goals.? Individuals in different positions seeing an
> opportunity to make something useful happen and taking that
> opportunity.? Both with the underlying tech and with operational
> deployment and use of it.

Yes. But IMHO it was driven by *need*. From the viewpoint of a
foreign observer, BITNET (yes, I know it didn't start out over TCP/IP),
CSNET, NSFNET and ESNET were driven by immediate needs, while GOSIP
was nothing but a promise.

Jack also asked:

>> Now that the Internet long ago grew beyond its role as a DoD Experiment, 
>> I wouldn't expect pieces of DoD (such as DCEC) to be responsible for 
>> "making the Internet happen".   It's a global and international task 
>> now.  But who inherited the role to make the Internet happen?

I think a number of those people are here. Internationally, the
answer was the same: universities and research labs needed a solution,
and OSI was still imaginary. At least in my little corner of the universe
(CERN, 20 years before anyone even heard of the LHC) it was need. We had
users in hundreds of universities round the world requiring vast data
transfers and effective communication. People like Vint and Larry
Landweber were promoting the technology, and we self-organized to
turn it into a network. Coordinating committees, engineering
planning groups, and a regional registry, were created because they
were necessary. RIPE wasn't official when it was created.
(https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/RARE-TCP-IP-report.txt)

And IBM donated links that were allowed to carry IP. That was
more important than many people understand.

Then (greatly to my surprise) when we started organizing things
like the Geneva ISOC chapter, half the people who showed up
were trying to make money! That was new!

However, it was fundamentally an evolutionary process with very
little official input. Heck, the official policy at CERN (which
I wrote in 1985, darn it) was OSI. Five years later I was all
TCP/IP ;-).

The only thing that was really forced by government was the creation
of ICANN, which despite the magical thinking that John Levine
mentioned on another thread is basically a clerical service.

     Brian






From vint at google.com  Sun Feb  4 13:46:04 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 16:46:04 -0500
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdzpUc8fthe7v-Dbh3p7zSztjZ9gZaS69SXEeJzioM7dQ@mail.gmail.com>

GOSIP was Government OSI Profile

v


On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 3:35?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Looking at the world from the other end of the spectrum from the
> corporate/government...
>
> Today, if an engineer invents something, and wants to make some money
> from that invention or even give it away for general public benefit, how
> would you accomplish that?
>
>  From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent
> battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent
> system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual with
> deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of battle
> in the system.
>
> In addition, it seemed that there was no individual or organization
> inside "the system" that had any incentive to ever resolve a patent
> dispute, except of course the litigants.  Patent lawyers, judges, PTO
> examiners, experts, legal clerks, corporate patent departments, et al
> have job security as long as the battles rage on.
>
> Getting back to internet history...
>
> I was surprised when I discovered the networking patent that DCEC had
> secured, and arranged for it to be freely usable by anyone. Then it
> occurred to me that perhaps their work was part of some larger plan.  It
> meshed in nicely with other events of the day (1980s).  For example,
> NIST had created a TCP testing program, DoD had changed its procurement
> policies to require TCP to be implemented in all its relevant purchases,
> ARPA had spent considerable funds creating implementations of TCP and
> making them freely available and, unlike OSI, making all the related
> documentation free for public use.   DCA had orchestrated a complex
> migration of its installed base from Arpanet (NCP) to Internet (TCP).
> Probably there were other such actions that I don't remember or never
> knew about at the time.
>
> Was all that effort across many different organizations planned and
> coordinated?
>
> Governments are good at making plans, generating documents, and
> establishing policies.  Back in the 80s, there was a significant US
> program called "GOSIP", which I think stood for "Government OSI Plan".
> It laid out the plan for conversion of the US government communications
> from a melange of technologies, including the 'TCP Experiment", into a
> new communications architecture based on OSI.
>
> That of course never happened.   TCP won.  But was there some "GIP", or
> "Government Internet Plan" that drove all of the decisions made within
> organizations such as ARPA, DoD, NIST, NSF, et al and acted as a "Plan
> B" to the GOSIP vision?  Or was all of that just coincidental decisions
> by various people inside parts of the US government?
>
> There's a lot of historical record of the development of technology -
> protocols etc., but I haven't stumbled across much concerning the
> "people behind the curtain" making the Internet happen.   For example,
> was the DCEC effort to secure patents on some Internet-related
> technology a result of some DoD directive?   Or was it just that someone
> (Ed Cain?  Bob Lyons?) that just decided it was a good idea and did it
> "under the radar"?
>
> Now that the Internet long ago grew beyond its role as a DoD Experiment,
> I wouldn't expect pieces of DoD (such as DCEC) to be responsible for
> "making the Internet happen".   It's a global and international task
> now.  But who inherited the role to make the Internet happen?
>
> Jack Haverty
>
>
> On 2/4/24 10:01, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> > Bob, the PTO supports non-profits like the National Science and
> Technology
> > Medals Foundation so at least some of that income is being re-injected
> into
> > worthy causes.
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 12:47?PM Bob Purvy<bpurvy at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Only one comment, which not everyone realizes:
> >>
> >> *" Santa Claus giving away free resources for public benefit, **
> >>
> >> The PTO runs at a huge profit, giving away (usually) worthless pieces of
> >> paper. It's not allowed to keep that money and use it to improve patent
> >> quality, hire more examiners, or do anything valuable. Instead, it just
> >> flows straight to the Treasury.
> >>
> >> This is 10+ year old information, so it's possible it's out of date.
> >>
> >> *Finally, another reminder: There's a bill in the Senate
> >> <
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2140/text#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(06%2F22%2F2023)&text=To%20amend%20title%2035%2C%20United,eligibility%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes
> .>that
> >> would undo the modest progress that CLS Bank v. Alice made towards
> getting
> >> rid of software patents. Write your Senator and ask any Senate
> candidates
> >> to oppose it.*
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:12?AM John Gilmore via Internet-history <
> >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The conflict of interest between public stewards of resources that
> >>> should be public, versus the private self-interest of the people
> >>> involved in that stewardship, is ancient and ongoing.  In the Internet
> >>> community it is visible everywhere, from the IETF vs. vendors, to ISOC
> >>> vs. foo.org users, to the ICANN's secretariat, lawyers, sinecure jobs,
> >>> and junkets.  As well as in people trying to tilt the patent and
> >>> copyright laws in courts and in Congress to favor themselves.  And in
> >>> the operation of the US Congress itself.  Google spends billions to
> >>> pitch itself so the public thinks of it as Santa Claus giving away free
> >>> resources for public benefit, while making tens of billions for itself.
> >>>
> >>> What was that quote about if you like sausage, don't look inside a
> >>> sausage factory?
> >>>
> >>> Tom Lehrer made great songs, and releasing them for the public domain
> in
> >>> his later life was a good move that will help his legacy stay alive
> >>> after he's gone.  The US copyright system used to do this automatically
> >>> after 28 years, back when it was structured to benefit the public.
> >>>
> >>> Vint Cerf via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service
> that
> >>>> they could be compensated for doing.
> >>> There are other places such as the Software Freedom Conservancy that
> >>> hold patents and copyrights for free software projects that don't have
> >>> their own nonprofit infrastructure.
> >>>
> >>> In general it's better to have dozens of such places.  If one place
> >>> accumulates a critical mass of valuable intellectual property, it will
> >>> end up attacked, perhaps sneakily, to obtain control of it and then use
> >>> that monopoly to make money unjustly.  If there are dozens, and one
> >>> becomes incompetent or self-interested, the whole world won't get
> >>> affected, just a little corner of it.
> >>>
> >>>>                                        As you know, ISOC has a
> challenge
> >>>> demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS
> >>> Public
> >>>> Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
> >>>> comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a
> >>> fraction
> >>>> of the PIR income as "public".
> >>> The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions
> of
> >>> dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
> >>> Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
> >>> (I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
> >>> raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)
> >>>
> >>> Hearing a complaint about how that large flow of money from overpriced
> >>> .org domains makes it hard for them to stay a legal nonprofit (*) would
> >>> be amusing, except for what happened in between.
> >>>
> >>> ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
> >>> private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people
> who
> >>> had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
> >>> The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
> >>> then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
> >>> world.  It took a large effort, led by people with .org domains
> >>> (including EFF.org) who didn't want to suffer so ISOC could profit, to
> >>> derail that plan.  Ultimately, self-interest scrutiny by the California
> >>> attorney general's office that regulates nonprofits (including ICANN
> >>> itself) borked the deal.  See:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry#Proposed_sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry
> >>>
> >>> If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom
> >>> and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing
> >>> its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.
> >>>
> >>>          John
> >>>
> >>> PS: (*) I'm on the board of ARDC.net, a small nonprofit which got a
> >>> $100M windfall from the ham-radio 44/8.  We couldn't honestly claim at
> >>> that point that the public was our source of support.  We became a
> >>> private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public
> >>> charity.  ISOC could do the same.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains
> >>> more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own
> >>> self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen.
> >>> Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general
> >>> public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn't
> >>> that be a great outcome?
> >>> --
> >>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>
> >
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

From woody at pch.net  Sun Feb  4 14:20:45 2024
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 23:20:45 +0100
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>
References: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <A914BD8C-8375-4879-B8DD-97D48A6C23E3@pch.net>

While I generally hold John Levine in the highest esteem and value his opinions...

> On Feb 4, 2024, at 20:31, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> It appears that John Gilmore via Internet-history <gnu at toad.com> said:
>> ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
>> private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
>> had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
>> The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
>> then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
>> world. ...
> I was on the ISOC board at the time, and that is malicious bullshit.

This is not malicious bullshit, it is a very conservative and generous summary of the facts, which tactfully refrains from mentioning the other side of the ?business plan?: monetizing the DNS queries of people contacting .ORG domain holders.

So, in this instance, John Gilmore is a disinterested party relating facts, and John Levine is an interested party proffering what could most charitably be characterized as revisionist happy-talk.

> ISOC's dependence on an ICANN contracted registry is a huge conflict

Yup.

> The stuff about price increases is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who knows how gTLD pricing works

Nope.  

https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-org-registry-agreement-18-03-2019

?The price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement.?  

That actually happened.  Not by accident, and not without the expectation that it could be exploited.

> ...investors looking for cashflow and diversification. PIRs current pricing would have done that just fine, paying them about 5% in an era where bonds paid 2%.

?and that is absolutely not how private equity works.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/woodcock-to-icann-board-22jan20-en.pdf

"Ethos has stated that it was able to secure only $360M in debt financing from real banks, and that the remainder of its $1.135B purchase price for PIR had to be met from private equity. Assuming an average bank lending interest rate of 5%, and the current average PE return rate of 22.6%, financing costs from the two sources amount to $18M/year and $175M/year, respectively, a total
of $193M/year. ISOC's current profit margin is $70M/year, but this includes a $29M/year subsidy that would not exist after a transfer to for-profit ownership. So, if .ORG were to be operated sustainably with no other changes, Ethos would be left with a net $152M annual shortfall. 

Ethos is presumably planning to trade a portion of this insolvency for instability (in the form of increased communications downtime for .ORG registrants); a portion for increased rent extraction (in the form of higher prices, less value for more money); and a portion for extraction of value from registrants via other mechanisms. 

The Ethos website lists four other companies it has acquired. All are startups in the data-brokering business, each exploring different methods of monetizing personally identifiable information (PII). Together, they form a pipeline of sorts, which when filled with PlI would produce money. The .ORG registry would fill the head of Ethos's pipeline.?

Unfortunately, two of those three came to pass.

> ISOC is stuck with PIR forever.

Yes, one can only hope that ISOC manages to free itself of its golden shackles, and becomes at last able to prove its value to the IRS and the world.  The mind boggles at the difficulty of ISOC?s predicament.  How could they possibly rid themselves of this burden?  

Actually, John (Gilmore) suggested a few proven mechanisms:

> On Feb 4, 2024, at 18:12, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> ...a private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public charity.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen. Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn?t that be a great outcome?

The happy-talk also avoided John?s conclusion:

> If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.


Indeed.  The Internet Archive springs to mind, among many others.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240204/a3f839fc/attachment.asc>

From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb  4 19:07:59 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Feb 2024 22:07:59 -0500
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <A914BD8C-8375-4879-B8DD-97D48A6C23E3@pch.net>
Message-ID: <20240205030800.3175B825009F@ary.qy>

It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>> The stuff about price increases is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who knows how gTLD pricing works
>
>Nope.  
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-org-registry-agreement-18-03-2019
>
>?The price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable
>price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement.?  
>
>That actually happened.  Not by accident, and not without the expectation that it could be exploited.

It is true that it happened.  Everything else is part of the malicious bullshit.

The contract change was at ICANN's request to make the contract
consistent with other registry contracts which don't have price caps.
It happened long before anyone approached ISOC about selling PIR. PIR
didn't care since the price they charged was and is far below the cap.
Needless to say, if PIR had any idea how people would leap to absurd
conclusions, they would have told ICANN no, keep it in the contract.

For what it's worth, Ethos (the buyer) publicly committed to keep the
price below the old cap if the deal went through, but by then nobody
was listening.

I'm not guessing or theorizing, I was there. If people claim I'm
lying, not much we can do about that.

R's,
John


From touch at strayalpha.com  Sun Feb  4 20:02:50 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 20:02:50 -0800
Subject: [ih] prior art, Why the six month draft expiration ?
In-Reply-To: <e11c9028-e11c-46f5-a7e5-48d9f6fcd499@iecc.com>
References: <e11c9028-e11c-46f5-a7e5-48d9f6fcd499@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <93F7F495-1954-4EF5-AB7D-912FF30764F6@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

I didn?t notice anyone mention the reason for 6-mos rather than not expiring - i.e., that the drafts expired to encourage ?half-baked? ideas that didn?t follow the author around forever.

That nuance was lost when the IETF decided to archive the drafts, as of a particular date.

Although archiving drafts does help the serve to battle patents, it did undo the original intent of the drafts being ephemeral.

I?m not entirely sure that was a win.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From touch at strayalpha.com  Sun Feb  4 20:10:22 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 20:10:22 -0800
Subject: [ih] A reminder about list decorum
Message-ID: <AA2B1AEB-854B-4D91-BCF7-CBD147CFD624@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

It?s certainly nice to see enthusiastic discussion on the list, but I remind participants to try to exercise a modest level of decorum.

Although some subjective assessments are welcome (?incorrect IMO?, ?not consistent with my expereince?, etc.), projections of personal intent (?malicious?) or assertions of value (?bullshit?) are not.

Please try to keep discussion on this list productive and moderate. 

Joe (list owner)
?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Feb  4 20:12:32 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 20:12:32 -0800
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>
References: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <7cd9c97b-3b8c-489b-808b-c13162961af1@dcrocker.net>

On 2/4/2024 11:31 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> ISOC's dependence on an ICANN contracted registry is a huge conflict
> of interest


This is a view that is immediately and intuitively very appealing. As is 
the act of declaring the conflict.

A conflict of interest is an arrangement that produces the opportunity 
for an unintended and undesirable bias in people or organizations 
holding power.? (Beyond that natural challenge of power corrupting 
pretty much anyone.)

Unfortunately, taking the nature of this concern and trying to apply it 
to the specifics of ISOC's role with .org, it is not easily successful 
for me.? I'm not at all clear exactly what the conflict is between.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what that conflict is?


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Feb  4 20:56:44 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:56:44 +1300
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <7cd9c97b-3b8c-489b-808b-c13162961af1@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240204193120.310A182382C5@ary.qy>
 <7cd9c97b-3b8c-489b-808b-c13162961af1@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <5b0239dc-6a3b-b2e7-cb6a-94b070c19d9a@gmail.com>

On 05-Feb-24 17:12, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 11:31 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> ISOC's dependence on an ICANN contracted registry is a huge conflict
>> of interest
> 
> 
> This is a view that is immediately and intuitively very appealing. As is
> the act of declaring the conflict.
> 
> A conflict of interest is an arrangement that produces the opportunity
> for an unintended and undesirable bias in people or organizations
> holding power.? (Beyond that natural challenge of power corrupting
> pretty much anyone.)
> 
> Unfortunately, taking the nature of this concern and trying to apply it
> to the specifics of ISOC's role with .org, it is not easily successful
> for me.? I'm not at all clear exactly what the conflict is between.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain exactly what that conflict is?

I'll try, and I should start by noting that I was Chair of the ISOC Board
when the decision to negotiate the original PIR deal was made. At that
time, I abstained from the Board vote because I perceived a conflict
of interest (for ISOC, not for me, otherwise I would have recused myself).

At that time, ISOC was flat broke. It was having difficulty balancing
the books. So the money from PIR wasn't just welcome, it was either that
or riding off into the sunset. Yet, ISOC was supposed to be neutral,
speaking for the worldwide Internet community as a whole, and also
acting as legal godmother for the IETF, and as the final appeal body
for IETF disputes. ICANN was a free-of-charge service provider for
the IETF (the IANA service), and formally obliged to take the IETF's
instructions in certain cases. ICANN was also making a lot of money
out of its clerical functions (basically writing down names and
numbers in a great big ledger).

(BTW, ICANN existed not because the Internet community wanted it,
but because the Clinton Administration imposed it. As Dave Crocker
knows as well as anybody, attempts at creating a community-based
solution to the IANA problem were overridden by the White House.)

So I couldn't clearly see how ISOC could be certain to retain its
independence or neutrality if it became dependent for its survival
on a registry operator that depended for its own survival on ICANN's
goodwill. I saw, and still see, a *potential* for a gross conflict
of interest if certain kinds of dispute emerged. That's why I
abstained from the ISOC Board vote, and nothing fundamental has
changed since then.

     Brian


From nigel at channelisles.net  Sun Feb  4 21:05:05 2024
From: nigel at channelisles.net (Nigel Roberts)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 05:05:05 +0000
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <20240205030800.3175B825009F@ary.qy>
References: <20240205030800.3175B825009F@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <41ec25f6-851f-40c2-bd69-06978fa4cca5@channelisles.net>

I was also there, on the ICANN Board at the time.

But, notwithstanding, might I gently point out the events of 3 or 4 
years ago isn't exactly HISTORY, is it?

Unless you take an extremely literal interpretation of the word.


N.



On 2/5/24 03:07, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>>> The stuff about price increases is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who knows how gTLD pricing works
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-org-registry-agreement-18-03-2019
>>
>> ?The price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable
>> price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement.?
>>
>> That actually happened.  Not by accident, and not without the expectation that it could be exploited.
> 
> It is true that it happened.  Everything else is part of the malicious bullshit.
> 
> The contract change was at ICANN's request to make the contract
> consistent with other registry contracts which don't have price caps.
> It happened long before anyone approached ISOC about selling PIR. PIR
> didn't care since the price they charged was and is far below the cap.
> Needless to say, if PIR had any idea how people would leap to absurd
> conclusions, they would have told ICANN no, keep it in the contract.
> 
> For what it's worth, Ethos (the buyer) publicly committed to keep the
> price below the old cap if the deal went through, but by then nobody
> was listening.
> 
> I'm not guessing or theorizing, I was there. If people claim I'm
> lying, not much we can do about that.
> 
> R's,
> John


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sun Feb  4 21:49:20 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 21:49:20 -0800
Subject: [ih] Really old list archives
In-Reply-To: <20240123180127.44F3618C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20240123180127.44F3618C095@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <3E8F25FF-1BDF-477C-92F3-15AFD9AC9BC6@icloud.com>

On Jan 23, 2024, at 10:01?AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> {Trying to catch up...}
> 
>> From: Greg Skinner
> 
>> There is a file in the ietf-ftp directory called 1990-all that contains
>> ietf list messages from 1990.
> 
> That is better than nothing (considering that the Web-accessible archive only
> starts in 1992), but it's still leaves a _enormous_ hole: the 1st IETF (21
> attendees; held jointly held with the first InArc meeting, IIRC) was in
> January, 1986 - so there's over 4 years of IETF list emails still not
> available.
> 
> I would guess that there's not one place that they'd all be available? (If
> CNRI had a log file of list traffic, would they still have it accessible -
> and if they had backups, do they still exist?)
> 
> We should get some historian started on trying to track them all down - who
> would be a likely target to take that monumental search on? The CHM?
> 
> 
> And I'd still like to find the name of the list that was used before the ietf
> list existed (the name is a start; finding any of its archives will be an
> even bigger search). Would it have been at DARPA? I'd guess not - but where
> else? ISI, SRI or BBN?
> 
> Pretty amazing that so much of the early history has been lost. At least Jon
> did all the minutes, available as IENs.
> 
> 	Noel
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

I went back to the tcp-ip list (using the security-digest archive of it on GitHub [1]) looking for information about GADS (the Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures task force) to see if anything about any of the old lists would turn up.  In a discussion about some routing problems during December 1985 [2], there were several messages copied to gateway-tf at USC-ISIB.ARPA <mailto:gateway-tf at USC-ISIB.ARPA>.  Could that be the list you?re thinking of?

Also, sorry to hear about Mike Brescia?s passing.  For some memories of him, see the ?Space wars? thread in the file referenced above.

?gregbo

[1] https://github.com/matthewgream/www-securitydigest-org/tree/master/tcp-ip
[2] https://github.com/matthewgream/www-securitydigest-org/blob/master/tcp-ip/archive/1985/12.txt.gz




From woody at pch.net  Mon Feb  5 01:51:38 2024
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:51:38 +0100
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <20240205030800.3175B825009F@ary.qy>
References: <20240205030800.3175B825009F@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <5D0494F4-1E25-43F3-A323-0F24DC8B150B@pch.net>



> On Feb 5, 2024, at 04:07, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> The contract change was at ICANN's request

Specifically, Fadi.

> It happened long before anyone approached ISOC about selling PIR.

I?m not sure what kind of rhetorical loophole you?re trying to construct here, but you appear to be arguing against your own point.  It didn?t happen before ISOC was receiving offers for the .ORG contract, but it did happen before the ridiculously high offers.  Which is exactly the point.

> PIR didn't care since the price they charged was and is far below the cap.

Which is irrelevant because PIR was the seller, not the buyer.

> Ethos (the buyer) publicly committed to keep the price below the old cap

Fadi said all kinds of things, but since they were generally all contradicted by his actions, what he says isn?t particularly relevant to anything.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240205/0996c892/attachment.asc>

From touch at strayalpha.com  Mon Feb  5 11:48:51 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:48:51 -0800
Subject: [ih] Purpose of this list
Message-ID: <18474624-F257-4BB0-AEA7-84E86839F755@strayalpha.com>

At the risk of repeating myself:
	This list is for discussion of Internet history.

Please take other discussions elsewhere or have them privately, which include how to run a (or this) list.

Joe (list owner)
?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From karl at iwl.com  Mon Feb  5 14:10:53 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:10:53 -0800
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <b525211d-29b7-4af5-8867-922a39fdec99@iwl.com>

On 2/4/24 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:

We are rather drifting away from my initial suggestion that rather than 
discarding IETF drafts after six months that we assign them to some nice 
non-profit qualified body (such as ISOC) to manage and to make a bit of 
revenue.? I perhaps triggered a tripwire by mentioning that such a body 
could also be a useful repository for any patents, trademarks, or 
copyrights that someone owns and would like to make the legal rights 
available to the world, even beyond the end of their lifetimes.

(I am aware of the issues of ISOC, PIR, and .org - but apart from 
recognizing that bodies can and do change over time, especially if under 
financial pressure, I don't think this thread ought to do more than 
recognize that those events are subject to diverse interpretations.)

> From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent 
> battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent 
> system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual 
> with deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of 
> battle in the system.

You are right that sometimes very deep pockets are necessary. But that 
is not always the case, particularly at the filing/issuance stage.

We have obtained US patents for less than $10K in initial drafting and 
filing costs.? Our patent attorney is really good at telling us what 
parts we can do ourselves (in order to reduce his time/fees) and even 
has us practice with a couple of things (such as filing provisionals.)? 
It doesn't hurt to take a look at books such as the Nolo Press' "Patent 
It Yourself" to become familiar with some of the steps and terminology.? 
(Admittedly, our patent person is a friend and we are probably getting 
preferential rates on fees.)

As you and others mention, the cost of defending or attacking a patent 
can be high.? But as I mentioned, having an issued patent with its 
presumption of validity creates strong protective barrier that an 
attacker has to penetrate.

In our own experience, patents are best though of as bargaining chips 
rather than things to fight over.

It was mentioned by John L. that one can simply not patent something at 
all or could abandon a patent.? Same for copyrights and trademarks.? 
Sure.? But part of the discussion here was regarding vehicles so that 
groups like ISOC could demonstrate public support and obtain $ revenue.

By-the-way, I was rather amused by the reference to the ISOC posting 
policy in that that policy fails to enshrine the grant of rights over 
the posted materials with an explicit non-revocation provision.

 ??? --karl--



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Feb  5 14:44:47 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:44:47 +1300
Subject: [ih] Off topic: patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <b525211d-29b7-4af5-8867-922a39fdec99@iwl.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
 <b525211d-29b7-4af5-8867-922a39fdec99@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <3b9a7124-8b02-a706-674c-d365dd0cb80e@gmail.com>

> to make a bit of revenue.

No. Just no. The IETF Trust doesn't even have copyright as such, and
we want I-Ds to be freely available just as RFCs are.

Also if any money was to be made, it would go to IETF LLC these days,
because they have to fund IETF tools and services.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 06-Feb-24 11:10, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> On 2/4/24 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> 
> We are rather drifting away from my initial suggestion that rather than
> discarding IETF drafts after six months that we assign them to some nice
> non-profit qualified body (such as ISOC) to manage and to make a bit of
> revenue.? I perhaps triggered a tripwire by mentioning that such a body
> could also be a useful repository for any patents, trademarks, or
> copyrights that someone owns and would like to make the legal rights
> available to the world, even beyond the end of their lifetimes.
> 
> (I am aware of the issues of ISOC, PIR, and .org - but apart from
> recognizing that bodies can and do change over time, especially if under
> financial pressure, I don't think this thread ought to do more than
> recognize that those events are subject to diverse interpretations.)
> 
>>  From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent
>> battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent
>> system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual
>> with deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of
>> battle in the system.
> 
> You are right that sometimes very deep pockets are necessary. But that
> is not always the case, particularly at the filing/issuance stage.
> 
> We have obtained US patents for less than $10K in initial drafting and
> filing costs.? Our patent attorney is really good at telling us what
> parts we can do ourselves (in order to reduce his time/fees) and even
> has us practice with a couple of things (such as filing provisionals.)
> It doesn't hurt to take a look at books such as the Nolo Press' "Patent
> It Yourself" to become familiar with some of the steps and terminology.
> (Admittedly, our patent person is a friend and we are probably getting
> preferential rates on fees.)
> 
> As you and others mention, the cost of defending or attacking a patent
> can be high.? But as I mentioned, having an issued patent with its
> presumption of validity creates strong protective barrier that an
> attacker has to penetrate.
> 
> In our own experience, patents are best though of as bargaining chips
> rather than things to fight over.
> 
> It was mentioned by John L. that one can simply not patent something at
> all or could abandon a patent.? Same for copyrights and trademarks.
> Sure.? But part of the discussion here was regarding vehicles so that
> groups like ISOC could demonstrate public support and obtain $ revenue.
> 
> By-the-way, I was rather amused by the reference to the ISOC posting
> policy in that that policy fails to enshrine the grant of rights over
> the posted materials with an explicit non-revocation provision.
> 
>   ??? --karl--
> 

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Mon Feb  5 15:10:09 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:10:09 -0800
Subject: [ih] Off topic: patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3b9a7124-8b02-a706-674c-d365dd0cb80e@gmail.com>
References: <20240203191236.E2F398229275@ary.qy>
 <3b6a4901-1b34-4f4f-bd19-a1d9f5e1b979@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggf6MBM-SGEFaJVzDN0foHRYOgcnFJOBaPgLu0OhJHcShw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a748c0e3-3977-448c-be23-49008f76db8a@iwl.com>
 <CAHxHggfkh=zDKRy_bxQ63o8rN=HJVQRcT_nHiExpcoWxYpOvBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <24053.1707066742@hop.toad.com>
 <CAFq6nVHQot=M8_W2mp68hV2grScr3-T_EHF1PP_a+SFDYXbJLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggetRxir8yq5jkrASf8q1K=-VCV1i222W=TWQCteBVWJqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3ded75fb-9876-40c7-85a6-73642f1aa622@3kitty.org>
 <b525211d-29b7-4af5-8867-922a39fdec99@iwl.com>
 <3b9a7124-8b02-a706-674c-d365dd0cb80e@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVG=AD6G54G6yuRti5aN3grjs5z2UzwTcRSDJ5uX0fij1A@mail.gmail.com>

They *should* be freely available, but we'd also like them to be Prior Art
so that people can't obtain patents on them. Before anyone jumps down my
throat, the requirements for this are minimal, but they're designed to foil
bad actors and their clever lawyers:

IANAL so these should be reviewed by an IP lawyer ("intellectual property"
not "Internet Protocol"):

1. The date when something becomes "available" should be recorded.

2. The count (but not the names or IP addresses).of downloaders should be
recorded.

3. The patent offices of every country in the world should be made aware of
it, so that patent applications can be checked against it.

4. A searchable directory should be maintained. Being searchable by Google
and other search engines might be sufficient as a minimum.

5. All professional journals should be made aware of it and preferably
publish links, so that "generally known to persons of skill in the art" is
true.

#2 answers the complaint that a document, while notionally "published," was
not really available to persons of skill in the art. If we can say "2000
people downloaded this on the day it was published" that complaint goes
away.

#4 is the modern equivalent of the library having it in its card catalog.

#5 answers the "no one knew about this!" objection.


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:44?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> > to make a bit of revenue.
>
> No. Just no. The IETF Trust doesn't even have copyright as such, and
> we want I-Ds to be freely available just as RFCs are.
>
> Also if any money was to be made, it would go to IETF LLC these days,
> because they have to fund IETF tools and services.
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 06-Feb-24 11:10, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> > On 2/4/24 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> >
> > We are rather drifting away from my initial suggestion that rather than
> > discarding IETF drafts after six months that we assign them to some nice
> > non-profit qualified body (such as ISOC) to manage and to make a bit of
> > revenue.  I perhaps triggered a tripwire by mentioning that such a body
> > could also be a useful repository for any patents, trademarks, or
> > copyrights that someone owns and would like to make the legal rights
> > available to the world, even beyond the end of their lifetimes.
> >
> > (I am aware of the issues of ISOC, PIR, and .org - but apart from
> > recognizing that bodies can and do change over time, especially if under
> > financial pressure, I don't think this thread ought to do more than
> > recognize that those events are subject to diverse interpretations.)
> >
> >>  From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent
> >> battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent
> >> system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual
> >> with deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of
> >> battle in the system.
> >
> > You are right that sometimes very deep pockets are necessary. But that
> > is not always the case, particularly at the filing/issuance stage.
> >
> > We have obtained US patents for less than $10K in initial drafting and
> > filing costs.  Our patent attorney is really good at telling us what
> > parts we can do ourselves (in order to reduce his time/fees) and even
> > has us practice with a couple of things (such as filing provisionals.)
> > It doesn't hurt to take a look at books such as the Nolo Press' "Patent
> > It Yourself" to become familiar with some of the steps and terminology.
> > (Admittedly, our patent person is a friend and we are probably getting
> > preferential rates on fees.)
> >
> > As you and others mention, the cost of defending or attacking a patent
> > can be high.  But as I mentioned, having an issued patent with its
> > presumption of validity creates strong protective barrier that an
> > attacker has to penetrate.
> >
> > In our own experience, patents are best though of as bargaining chips
> > rather than things to fight over.
> >
> > It was mentioned by John L. that one can simply not patent something at
> > all or could abandon a patent.  Same for copyrights and trademarks.
> > Sure.  But part of the discussion here was regarding vehicles so that
> > groups like ISOC could demonstrate public support and obtain $ revenue.
> >
> > By-the-way, I was rather amused by the reference to the ISOC posting
> > policy in that that policy fails to enshrine the grant of rights over
> > the posted materials with an explicit non-revocation provision.
> >
> >       --karl--
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Feb  5 16:45:35 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:45:35 +1300
Subject: [ih] Prehistory: NPL Scrapbook
Message-ID: <07e23850-3774-8ed6-f1f2-fb8e3acb5037@gmail.com>

Hi,

Back on topic, I hope. I've been contacted in the last few days by Peter Cashin, who is the only surviving developer of the Scrapbook project at NPL in 1970-74. This is not well known but was a (small) distributed information service including things very like hyperlinks, running over the pioneering NPL packet-switched network. Vint may remember Peter from INWG meetings.

Peter is a New Zealander who now divides his time between NZ and Canada. Should I be doing an oral history style interview with him? He's in NZ for the next few weeks.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Feb  5 16:48:46 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:48:46 -0500
Subject: [ih] Prehistory: NPL Scrapbook
In-Reply-To: <07e23850-3774-8ed6-f1f2-fb8e3acb5037@gmail.com>
References: <07e23850-3774-8ed6-f1f2-fb8e3acb5037@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UdYqttD3LWPpW9vyy-siZBJ84bCS=294D=yoZtsWc=RA@mail.gmail.com>

yes, indeed, I do remember Peter Cashin.
What a good idea to interview him!
v


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:45?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Back on topic, I hope. I've been contacted in the last few days by Peter
> Cashin, who is the only surviving developer of the Scrapbook project at NPL
> in 1970-74. This is not well known but was a (small) distributed
> information service including things very like hyperlinks, running over the
> pioneering NPL packet-switched network. Vint may remember Peter from INWG
> meetings.
>
> Peter is a New Zealander who now divides his time between NZ and Canada.
> Should I be doing an oral history style interview with him? He's in NZ for
> the next few weeks.
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Feb  5 19:19:21 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 5 Feb 2024 22:19:21 -0500
Subject: [ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead,
 patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <5D0494F4-1E25-43F3-A323-0F24DC8B150B@pch.net>
Message-ID: <20240206031921.4E6E68263AED@ary.qy>

Sigh.  The smoke just gets smoggier.

It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>> On Feb 5, 2024, at 04:07, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> The contract change was at ICANN's request
>
>Specifically, Fadi.

I doubt it, but I wasn't privy to ICANN's internal operations. 

For anyone who hasn't been following along, they got rid of the price
cap on .PRO in 2015, and on .INFO and .BIZ in 2019, the same time as
.ORG. This was consistent with their stated plan to make all of the
registry agreements as consistent as possible. 

The only remaining price caps are on .COM, required by Verisign's
agreement with DoC, and .NET and .NAME, I think because it's not worth
it to Verisign to argue about them while .COM is still capped.

>> It happened long before anyone approached ISOC about selling PIR.
>
>I?m not sure what kind of rhetorical loophole you?re trying to construct here, but you appear to be arguing against your own point.  It didn?t
>happen before ISOC was receiving offers for the .ORG contract, but it did happen before the ridiculously high offers. ...

I don't understand what you're claiming, and honestly, I don't really care.

The wholesale price for .ORG domains was and is a little over $10.
Under the old price cap, the limit in 2019 would have been $14.62, and
today it would be $23.54. The price cap was a complete red herring.

As to assertions that the plan was to raise the price to $100 or
$1000, some things are just too dumb to be worth refuting.

R's,
John


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Feb  5 19:32:22 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 5 Feb 2024 22:32:22 -0500
Subject: [ih] patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <b525211d-29b7-4af5-8867-922a39fdec99@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <20240206033223.116468263D44@ary.qy>

It appears that Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <karl at iwl.com> said:
>On 2/4/24 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>
>We are rather drifting away from my initial suggestion that rather than 
>discarding IETF drafts after six months that we assign them to some nice 
>non-profit qualified body (such as ISOC) to manage and to make a bit of 
>revenue.?...

I think this would be an excellent time to stop and read RFC 5377 and
5378 which describe the rights the IETF has in contributions, and
the Trust's licenses described at https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/

The IETF Trust is not ISOC and is not the IETF LLC, and that's not an accident.

R's,
John


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Feb  5 19:35:44 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 5 Feb 2024 22:35:44 -0500
Subject: [ih] Off topic: patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVG=AD6G54G6yuRti5aN3grjs5z2UzwTcRSDJ5uX0fij1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20240206033544.BA9D08263DF9@ary.qy>

It appears that Bob Purvy via Internet-history <bpurvy at gmail.com> said:
>They *should* be freely available, but we'd also like them to be Prior Art

Internet Drafts *are* prior art.  Didn't you see Scott's note where he
said they've been used in patent cases?

R's,
John

PS:

> 4. A searchable directory should be maintained. Being searchable by Google
> and other search engines might be sufficient as a minimum.

Of course they're all in search engines.


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Mon Feb  5 20:30:34 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:30:34 -0800
Subject: [ih] Off topic: patents and public stewardship
In-Reply-To: <20240206033544.BA9D08263DF9@ary.qy>
References: <CAFq6nVG=AD6G54G6yuRti5aN3grjs5z2UzwTcRSDJ5uX0fij1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240206033544.BA9D08263DF9@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVELWL7eAVjve_NMtzCEqRAr4JA6Bxj+1OtcF-vLZt_2PA@mail.gmail.com>

> Internet Drafts *are* prior art.  Didn't you see Scott's note where he
said they've been used in patent cases?

yes, John, I did see that. However, I've been involved in lots of patent
litigation and prosecution cases, and "prior art" as a concept has
loopholes. It's not open-and-shut. Clever lawyers can drive a truck through
them. A couple vignettes:

1) In that German case
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-patent-may-block-google-maps-in-germany/>
I mentioned, this publication
<https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e1d9f9d615473c13859761ddc12a6f2eb6071522>
that I found was the death of Microsoft's patent. Since it was not itself a
patent, Google had the burden of establishing that it *was* available on
the date we cited. We had a librarian at UCSD (I think) certify that it was
shelved as of that date, and unfortunately Dr. DeWitt had joined Microsoft!
Their press release announcing it even cited this paper.  Were their faces
red!

2) I watched a mock jury deliberate a patent case, where prior art was in
question. One juror said words to the effect "How could the PTO know about
this? It seems so obscure!"

Ignorant, I know, but juries do what they do.

So all those points I laid out are to make the IETF publications
challenge-proof.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:35?PM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

> It appears that Bob Purvy via Internet-history <bpurvy at gmail.com> said:
> >They *should* be freely available, but we'd also like them to be Prior Art
>
> Internet Drafts *are* prior art.  Didn't you see Scott's note where he
> said they've been used in patent cases?
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS:
>
> > 4. A searchable directory should be maintained. Being searchable by
> Google
> > and other search engines might be sufficient as a minimum.
>
> Of course they're all in search engines.
>


From touch at strayalpha.com  Thu Feb  8 16:24:50 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:24:50 -0800
Subject: [ih] Purpose of this list
In-Reply-To: <A0D33519-73E7-481C-AABB-9D7312B13253@icloud.com>
References: <18474624-F257-4BB0-AEA7-84E86839F755@strayalpha.com>
 <6d6f90dd-5f38-d0b2-efa7-c91e4e7a716a@meetinghouse.net>
 <A0D33519-73E7-481C-AABB-9D7312B13253@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <F74DBDC1-DF0B-4559-BDA8-61F55887A9D3@strayalpha.com>

> On Feb 8, 2024, at 3:58?PM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 8, 2024, at 2:40?PM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> Ok... does the evolution of lists, forums, online behavior, the history of specific lists (like this one), and the like fit under your notion of Internet history?  :-)

To be clear for everyone - it does not. 

Please take such discussions elsewhere. 

Joe (list owner)

From touch at strayalpha.com  Fri Feb  9 20:31:25 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 20:31:25 -0800
Subject: [ih] Test - please ignore.
Message-ID: <2EB87636-F22F-4905-8E4B-AEDFD36F4D47@strayalpha.com>


?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From touch at strayalpha.com  Fri Feb  9 20:38:57 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 20:38:57 -0800
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration
Message-ID: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what we?ve been using to date. 

Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.

Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if you?re not getting what?s posted there.

The change will commence with the NEXT message...

Thanks all,

Joe (list owner)

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From touch at strayalpha.com  Fri Feb  9 20:41:20 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 20:41:20 -0800
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration - change confirmation
In-Reply-To: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

The change commences with this message, which should show as ?from? me, rather than from the list.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Feb 9, 2024, at 8:38?PM, touch--- via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what we?ve been using to date. 
> 
> Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.
> 
> Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if you?re not getting what?s posted there.
> 
> The change will commence with the NEXT message...
> 
> Thanks all,
> 
> Joe (list owner)
> 
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Fri Feb  9 20:49:52 2024
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 23:49:52 -0500
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration - change confirmation
In-Reply-To: <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
 <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3W7TNHp=5TwW=-FutDWZCpsyh7NxwiDd4o_=GTo7=R6HA@mail.gmail.com>

That config has sometimes required Gmail users to exempt the list/forwarder
from spam/forgery quarantine, as they know it did not actually come
directly from Gmail. This message tests if I need to set that, or if
Mailman & Google have figured things out now.

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 11:41 PM touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com>
wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> The change commences with this message, which should show as ?from? me,
> rather than from the list.
>
> Joe
>
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> > On Feb 9, 2024, at 8:38?PM, touch--- via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what
> we?ve been using to date.
> >
> > Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.
> >
> > Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t
> receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if
> you?re not getting what?s posted there.
> >
> > The change will commence with the NEXT message...
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Joe (list owner)
> >
> > ?
> > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> > www.strayalpha.com
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From agmalis at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 08:35:14 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:35:14 -0500
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration - change confirmation
In-Reply-To: <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
 <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU12bhzhiUXfs0Z7v=g1ESvTZxjKo3RjzQdVyNq7eEWdWw@mail.gmail.com>

Joe,

Under the old configuration (your first of the two messages), Gmail reports:

SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
DKIM: 'PASS' with domain elists.isoc.org
DMARC: 'PASS'

Under the new configuration (your second of the two messages), it reports:

SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain strayalpha.com

For Bill's message, it reports:

SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain gmail.com
DMARC: 'FAIL'

So while I did receive the two messages, this may be a step backwards for
at least some people.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:41?PM touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com>
wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> The change commences with this message, which should show as ?from? me,
> rather than from the list.
>
> Joe
>
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> > On Feb 9, 2024, at 8:38?PM, touch--- via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what
> we?ve been using to date.
> >
> > Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.
> >
> > Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t
> receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if
> you?re not getting what?s posted there.
> >
> > The change will commence with the NEXT message...
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Joe (list owner)
> >
> > ?
> > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> > www.strayalpha.com
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From agmalis at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 08:40:08 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:40:08 -0500
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration - change confirmation
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU12bhzhiUXfs0Z7v=g1ESvTZxjKo3RjzQdVyNq7eEWdWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
 <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
 <CAA=duU12bhzhiUXfs0Z7v=g1ESvTZxjKo3RjzQdVyNq7eEWdWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1zJya9GZsxy2CCA2YGRTYMqpNgPGmE=xARXTmTX_tW5A@mail.gmail.com>

Adding to my own email, a good test would be a list member sending from
yahoo.com, as they are known to have a very strict DMARC setting.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 11:35?AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Under the old configuration (your first of the two messages), Gmail
> reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'PASS' with domain elists.isoc.org
> DMARC: 'PASS'
>
> Under the new configuration (your second of the two messages), it reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain strayalpha.com
>
> For Bill's message, it reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain gmail.com
> DMARC: 'FAIL'
>
> So while I did receive the two messages, this may be a step backwards for
> at least some people.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:41?PM touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> The change commences with this message, which should show as ?from? me,
>> rather than from the list.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> ?
>> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> www.strayalpha.com
>>
>> > On Feb 9, 2024, at 8:38?PM, touch--- via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, all,
>> >
>> > The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what
>> we?ve been using to date.
>> >
>> > Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t
>> receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if
>> you?re not getting what?s posted there.
>> >
>> > The change will commence with the NEXT message...
>> >
>> > Thanks all,
>> >
>> > Joe (list owner)
>> >
>> > ?
>> > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> > www.strayalpha.com
>> >
>> > --
>> > Internet-history mailing list
>> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 10 08:45:21 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:45:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] NOTICE - change in list configuration - change confirmation
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1zJya9GZsxy2CCA2YGRTYMqpNgPGmE=xARXTmTX_tW5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAA3CF5-6C16-4D3D-BE72-45A48617A463@strayalpha.com>
 <8E571A15-0AAE-4F27-AD22-8B89CA9B0A66@strayalpha.com>
 <CAA=duU12bhzhiUXfs0Z7v=g1ESvTZxjKo3RjzQdVyNq7eEWdWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU1zJya9GZsxy2CCA2YGRTYMqpNgPGmE=xARXTmTX_tW5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2131294323.802928.1707583521543@mail.yahoo.com>

 Here is your yahoo test.??
barbara
    On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:40:38 AM PST, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Adding to my own email, a good test would be a list

?member sending from
yahoo.com, as they are known to have a very strict DMARC setting.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 11:35?AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Under the old configuration (your first of the two messages), Gmail
> reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'PASS' with domain elists.isoc.org
> DMARC: 'PASS'
>
> Under the new configuration (your second of the two messages), it reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain strayalpha.com
>
> For Bill's message, it reports:
>
> SPF: PASS with IP 4.31.198.48
> DKIM: 'FAIL' with domain gmail.com
> DMARC: 'FAIL'
>
> So while I did receive the two messages, this may be a step backwards for
> at least some people.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 11:41?PM touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> The change commences with this message, which should show as ?from? me,
>> rather than from the list.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> ?
>> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> www.strayalpha.com
>>
>> > On Feb 9, 2024, at 8:38?PM, touch--- via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, all,
>> >
>> > The list configuration is being changed. The Mailman default is what
>> we?ve been using to date.
>> >
>> > Under this new config mail comes from the sender, rather than the list.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if you notice any issues - if you think you aren?t
>> receiving mail, please check the list archives and let me know directly if
>> you?re not getting what?s posted there.
>> >
>> > The change will commence with the NEXT message...
>> >
>> > Thanks all,
>> >
>> > Joe (list owner)
>> >
>> > ?
>> > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
>> > www.strayalpha.com
>> >
>> > --
>> > Internet-history mailing list
>> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
  

From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 10 08:57:34 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:57:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>


Testing again with a brand new message. In the past I have had too many failures when a few other messages were included.
BTW it doesn't seem like my reply to your ih message went through on my previous attempt .? I got the cc I sent to myself. I assume the individual addresses went through.

barbara


From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb 10 08:59:11 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:59:11 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>

I got your previous message through the list

Scott

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 11:57?AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Testing again with a brand new message. In the past I have had too many failures when a few other messages were included.
> BTW it doesn't seem like my reply to your ih message went through on my previous attempt .  I got the cc I sent to myself. I assume the individual addresses went through.
> 
> barbara
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 10 09:07:11 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 17:07:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
 <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <560179947.802715.1707584831725@mail.yahoo.com>

 Interesting.? I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.? Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.??
barbara
    On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:  
 
 I got your previous message through the list

Scott


  

From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb 10 09:09:40 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:09:40 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <560179947.802715.1707584831725@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
 <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>
 <560179947.802715.1707584831725@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BD5EB7CD-B0C7-4D2A-938D-485D24FC0CB7@sobco.com>

just one

if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)

Scott

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.  
> 
> barbara
> 
> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> I got your previous message through the list
> 
> Scott
> 
> 



From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 09:23:42 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:23:42 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <BD5EB7CD-B0C7-4D2A-938D-485D24FC0CB7@sobco.com>
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
 <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>
 <560179947.802715.1707584831725@mail.yahoo.com>
 <BD5EB7CD-B0C7-4D2A-938D-485D24FC0CB7@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>

Here is what my inbox looks like:

?

Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list name, the rest have the email address of the sender.

Bob



> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> just one
> 
> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.  
>> 
>> barbara
>> 
>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> I got your previous message through the list
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From olejacobsen at me.com  Sat Feb 10 09:41:26 2024
From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:41:26 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>

Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other attachments are filtered out.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415 550-9433
Cell: +1 415 370-4628
UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
http://protocoljournal.org

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
> 
> ?
> 
> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> just one
>> 
>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.  
>>> 
>>> barbara
>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history


From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb 10 09:48:17 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:48:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
Message-ID: <8D99661F-3A24-4B46-9C6A-B4FE0E69921F@sobco.com>

I received Bob's image just fine

Scott


> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:41?PM, Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen at me.com> wrote:
> 
> Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other attachments are filtered out.
> 
> Ole
> 
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office: +1 415 550-9433
> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
> UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
> Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
> http://protocoljournal.org
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> just one
>>> 
>>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
>>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
>>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.  
>>>> 
>>>> barbara
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 09:48:45 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:48:45 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>

same here
v


On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:41?PM Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other
> attachments are filtered out.
>
> Ole
>
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> The Internet Protocol Journal
> Office: +1 415 550-9433
> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
> UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
> Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
> http://protocoljournal.org
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list
> name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> just one
> >>
> >> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your
> mail from Yahoo
> >> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address
> says its coming
> >> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that
> was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got
> two copies of this one.
> >>>
> >>> barbara
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <
> sob at sobco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I got your previous message through the list
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 10 09:50:38 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 17:50:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
Message-ID: <1557643810.822133.1707587438906@mail.yahoo.com>

 Hi Ole
I got to see Bob's image. Not sure this will make it to the entire list.
barbara
    On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 09:41:51 AM PST, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other attachments are filtered out.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415 550-9433
Cell: +1 415 370-4628
UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
http://protocoljournal.org

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
> 
> ?
> 
> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> just one
>> 
>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Interesting.? I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.? Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.? 
>>> 
>>> barbara
>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
  

From touch at strayalpha.com  Sat Feb 10 09:53:13 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:53:13 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>

Whether you saw an image depended on whether your email delivery was set for ?plain? or not.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:48?AM, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> same here
> v
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:41?PM Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other
>> attachments are filtered out.
>> 
>> Ole
>> 
>> Ole J. Jacobsen
>> Editor & Publisher
>> The Internet Protocol Journal
>> Office: +1 415 550-9433
>> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
>> UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
>> Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
>> http://protocoljournal.org
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list
>> name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> just one
>>>> 
>>>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your
>> mail from Yahoo
>>>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address
>> says its coming
>>>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that
>> was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got
>> two copies of this one.
>>>>> 
>>>>> barbara
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <
>> sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 10 10:07:50 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:07:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <BD5EB7CD-B0C7-4D2A-938D-485D24FC0CB7@sobco.com>
References: <621521073.795716.1707584254842.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <621521073.795716.1707584254842@mail.yahoo.com>
 <3AA71865-3DFF-42B2-9D97-E61F2874374B@sobco.com>
 <560179947.802715.1707584831725@mail.yahoo.com>
 <BD5EB7CD-B0C7-4D2A-938D-485D24FC0CB7@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <1524011774.818595.1707588470360@mail.yahoo.com>

 ?On the brand new message that I only sent to the list I got what I believe to be my list copy.? I think you should have gotten two copies.? Have you noticed in the past you occasionally don't get a message?? I have (i get a message which includes the one I haven't seen and can't find that message in my inbox or spam folder).? Bob's email could explain why I still got the message i received? (It says internet history).
It does seem like my email to the mailing list may still fail at times (to reach everyone?) but very inconsistently.? I usually ask Greg Skinner whether he got a copy before I try sending again to the list or he sends it for me when? I finally give up. I still haven't gotten my first message (reply to ih message from Andy).? I assume the software is not trying to be smart and not display multiple copies in my inbox, etc...
Thanks for helping in my exploration.??
barbara
    On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 09:09:52 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:  
 
 just one

if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your mail from Yahoo
through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address says its coming
from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)

Scott

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting.? I still haven't seen the first message to the list that was the actual reply.? Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got two copies of this one.? 
> 
> barbara
> 
> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> I got your previous message through the list
> 
> Scott
> 
> 

  

From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 10:17:36 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:17:36 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>

Is that:

   Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?

Bob


> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:53?AM, touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> 
> Whether you saw an image depended on whether your email delivery was set for ?plain? or not.
> 
> Joe
> 
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:48?AM, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> same here
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:41?PM Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other
>>> attachments are filtered out.
>>> 
>>> Ole
>>> 
>>> Ole J. Jacobsen
>>> Editor & Publisher
>>> The Internet Protocol Journal
>>> Office: +1 415 550-9433
>>> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
>>> UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
>>> Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
>>> http://protocoljournal.org
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list
>>> name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> just one
>>>>> 
>>>>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your
>>> mail from Yahoo
>>>>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address
>>> says its coming
>>>>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that
>>> was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got
>>> two copies of this one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> barbara
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <
>>> sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From touch at strayalpha.com  Sat Feb 10 10:24:27 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:24:27 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>

I think it applies to both digest and non-digest posts. My dashboard shows a checkbox for ?plain?.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 10:17?AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?



From aam3sendonly at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 10:43:39 2024
From: aam3sendonly at gmail.com (Alexander McKenzie)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 13:43:39 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
Message-ID: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>

I got a lot of test messages, but when I sent a response from my Yahoo
account I didn't receive it.  Did anyone else?


From sob at sobco.com  Sat Feb 10 10:54:02 2024
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 13:54:02 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87F5A383-2649-4780-97CC-73C031936B35@sobco.com>

I did not

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 1:43?PM, Alexander McKenzie <aam3sendonly at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I got a lot of test messages, but when I sent a response from my Yahoo
> account I didn't receive it.  Did anyone else?
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From touch at strayalpha.com  Sat Feb 10 10:54:41 2024
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:54:41 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>

It's going to the list archives.

But this may be the downside of the new config - whether anyone gets a given message depends on EACH SENDER?s email coupled with EACH RECIPIENT?s requirements.

For a list about Internet history, I?m starting to wonder if that?s desirable?.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 10:43?AM, Alexander McKenzie <aam3sendonly at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I got a lot of test messages, but when I sent a response from my Yahoo
> account I didn't receive it.  Did anyone else?
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 11:03:30 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:03:30 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <663d16a9-1ac1-4d2e-89b8-2fa1cced2b10@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 10:43 AM, Alexander McKenzie wrote:
> I got a lot of test messages, but when I sent a response from my Yahoo
> account I didn't receive it.  Did anyone else?


Yahoo was the original user of vigorous DMARC, expanded to mail sent 
from a consumer platform.? Any receiving site that honors the request 
for strong enforcement of DMARC will see that the DMARC test fails, with 
a From: field showing DMARC and no SPF or DKIM verification for yahoo.com.


d

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 11:08:41 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:08:41 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAMusaY95u_CD8s9GqKOWLxBMA32EQ+P1YHvSrHF=ozAOOECyfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <3cda9244-1a60-4d07-9a5f-0fc0e99dae06@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 10:54 AM, touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> But this may be the downside of the new config - whether anyone gets a
> given message depends on EACH SENDER?s email coupled with EACH
> RECIPIENT?s requirements.
>
> For a list about Internet history, I?m starting to wonder if that?s
> desirable?.

In practical terms, SPF fails even one MTA hop.? DKIM survies MTA 
transit and even alias forwarding.? It does not survive mailing list 
transit.

So DMARC fails mailing list transit.? Every time.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Feb 10 11:16:10 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:16:10 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>

A few months ago, after getting tired of all the "I never got your 
email" reports, I did a deep dive into email to try and figure out 
what's happening.?? I wrote one of the first email servers back in the 
early 1970s, so I thought I might still be able to figure it out.

Bottom line - it's a mess.? I won't put everyone asleep with all the 
details of the protocol alphabet soup, but here's the steps I did to get 
my email working as well as seems possible now:

1) Verify that your own email is following all of the current anti-spam 
schemes.? One easy way to test is by using the site 
https://www.mail-tester.com/?? When you go to that site it will display 
an email address to you.? Don't close your browser, but start up your 
email program on any handy device.? Using your regular email program, 
send an email to that address.? Then go back to the browser after a few 
minutes and click on "Test Your Score" to get your report.?? If you 
don't get a 10/10 score, fix whatever is wrong until you do.? Fixing may 
require setting up appropriate SPF, DKIM, and/or DMARC records, which 
you may have to ask your email provider's customer support to do.?? In 
my case, I had to switch email providers to one that understood what I 
was talking about.?? I now get a 10/10 on mail from jack at 3kitty.org.

Having done #1, the mail you send should now be fairly impervious to 
various anti-spam filters that your mail may encounter in its travels.

However, that won't necessarily make your mail reliable when it passes 
through "forwarders" such as this list, or googlegroups, or yahoogroups, 
or group.io, etc.?? You need to check each such list to determine how it 
handles your mail as it gets forwarded to the addressees in the 
associated list.

2) Determine whether or not your mail is altered in any way as it passes 
through the forwarder.? If it is altered, it is no longer the same 
message you sent.? Many forwarders change your message, e.g., by 
deleting images, by adding some kind of "banner" at the top or bottom 
identifying the list, changing the "from" field to indicate that the 
message came from the list, etc.

If your message is altered in transit, there are consequences.? For 
example, if you digitally "sign" your mail using PGP, the digital 
signature will indicate to the recipients that the signature has been 
forged.

3) Even if your message is passed through intact (as it appears Joe has 
done for this list), it may be rejected by various recipients' mail 
servers.?? Your message appears to be from you (e.g., this one from 
jack at 3kitty.org).? But the recipient server receives it from the 
isoc.org mail server, rather than from the 3kitty.org mail server.?? The 
recipient server may discard your mail since it didn't come from an 
authorized 3kitty.org sender.

As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for 
you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings to authorize 
each forwarder you use as a legitimate sender of your email.? For 
example, I could add isoc.org as an authorized sender of mail from 
3kitty.org.?? However, if I did that, anyone could send mail from 
isoc.org impersonating me.?? That sounds like a bad idea.

4) If you have your own domain, you can get more information about how 
your mail is being treated by the anti-spam mechanisms that mail 
providers have put in place.? By setting up an appropriate DMARC entry, 
mail servers for your recipients will send you email with reports on how 
they handled email you sent to their mailboxes. Again, you have to work 
with your mail provider to get the appropriate configurations in place.

I now get email from all sorts of mail systems, telling me how email I 
have sent was treated when it arrived at its destination.?? Much of it 
still reports failures, e.g., because I haven't done #4, or because a 
forwarder along the way has tampered with what I originally sent.

It will be interesting to see what this message triggers and what kind 
of reports I get back....

Hope this helps someone,
Jack Haverty

PS - using "reply all" to list messages can cause confusion.? Your reply 
may be sent not only to the list, but also to other addresses such as 
the person who sent the message you reply to.?? It's common to get the 
same message multiple times - e.g., once through the distribution list 
and once through a direct path.?? One may succeed and the other fail, or 
you might get both.? I'm not sure, but it also seems that some 
distribution systems look at the headers and avoid sending a message to 
someone if their address also appears in the To: or Cc: fields of the 
message being processed.?? That avoids some duplicates but can be 
confusing when you don't receive what you expected to receive.?? Like I 
said - it's a mess...


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240210/9ae007c5/attachment.asc>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 11:29:00 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:29:00 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for 
> you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings


SPF is the only one of those that 'authorizes' transit hosts.

DKIM just creates a signature that might or might not get broken in 
transit.? (For a mailing list, the might get changes to will get.)

ARC was created to permit mailing list transit.? It is complicated and 
has had limited adoption.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From agmalis at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 11:37:39 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 14:37:39 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>

On Gmail, I just compared my inbox with the archive. I've received every
email that's in the archive. That said, I was explicitly copied on a number
of them, so I'm not a good test case.

Also, neither I nor the archive received the reply that Alex M. claimed to
have sent, although we both received his follow-up.

I did not receive Bob's image. My setting for images in digests had been
"plain", so I've now changed it to MIME.

Even though it seems to be working for Gmail reception, it might be best to
put it back the way it was, it seems much safer that way. I didn't mind the
sender being rewritten, it's still clear who the author is of each email.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 2:29?PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> > As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for
> > you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings
>
>
> SPF is the only one of those that 'authorizes' transit hosts.
>
> DKIM just creates a signature that might or might not get broken in
> transit.  (For a mailing list, the might get changes to will get.)
>
> ARC was created to permit mailing list transit.  It is complicated and
> has had limited adoption.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 11:55:23 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:55:23 -0800
Subject: [ih] Consider the mess (was: Re:  Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <6f1ab0c2-c2a8-497a-81ca-0ff02ae32ed0@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> Bottom line - it's a mess.


TLDR:? It is.? But...


Expanded comment:

I often cite the difference between a small town, where no one locks 
their doors, versus a place like New York City, where a door is built 
more like a steel vault.? Differences in environment require differences 
in behavior and tools.

This is not the original Internet.? Now, 90-95% of the mail crossing the 
open Internet is from bad actors.? So increases in protection mechanism 
for email are obviously required. Unfortunately, automating that 
protection is both difficult and imperfect, in spite of being done by a 
substantial community of bright, knowledgeable, well-motivated folk.

Perfect protection against online abuse -- including email spam and 
phishing -- will be accomplished when we achieve perfect protection from 
crime IRL.

This guarantees that any current, viable email system is going to be 
complex and that operating it is going to be complex.

That is, email development and operation at scale is, in practical 
terms, now strictly the realm of expert teams.


A separate line of consideration is the set of tools and standards that 
are available to aid in that protection.? IMO they vary between a mess 
in their own right -- cough... SPF -- to inherently limited, like DKIM.

I don't seem to be able to comment on SPF without ranting, so I won't 
comment on SPF.

DKIM however uses known tech in ways easily understood by technicians 
with basic systems and crypto (use, not design) skills.? And it has 
shown slow but reasonable adoption and use at scale.? (It made some 
design choices that greatly aided this relative success, given how 
grenerally poorly it seems crypto-based tools are adopted, other than 
SSL/TLS.)


Unfortunately the serious impediment to doing better is the challenge of 
using true, end-to-end thinking AND considering all users as equal.? So 
we tend to have point solutions rather than systems solution, and we 
tend not to explore full, end-to-end usage very seriously.

Worse is that collateral damage is often dismissed.? So, for example, 
the adoption of DMARC for use beyond its original design intent is the 
reason mailing list transit has become problematic. Mailing lists have 
been in place for 45 years and in terms of email architecture, they work 
the same now as they did 45 years ago.

But the response from folk who support the enhanced use of DMARC, when 
it is noted that behavior valid for 45 years has become invalid, is 
entirely dismissive.? Those affected are not, after all, the customers 
of the advocates.? (Well, OK.? ARC was developed as a response, but it 
has issues and is not yet a serious player in the real world of email...)

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 12:03:04 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:03:04 +1300
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <1f2bef1d-0e4d-238f-86b6-268ae72ae273@gmail.com>

On 11-Feb-24 06:53, touch at strayalpha.com wrote:
> Whether you saw an image depended on whether your email delivery was set for ?plain? or not.

I assume you meant "display" not "delivery". No setting in Thunderbird displays whatever image Bob sent. And it isn't displayed when I look at the message with Gmail's web interface. And it isn't in the mailing list archive. In all those cases, there is only a tiny little 'OBJ' icon.

On investigation, that icon (?) is a Unicode character, 0xefbfbc in UTF-8 format.

https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/fffc/index.htm

So I'm guessing that only Scott saw the actual image, as a direct recipient of the message. Mailman converted it to U+FFFC.

    Brian

> 
> Joe
> 
> ?
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:48?AM, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> same here
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:41?PM Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sadly what you are trying to show does not show as images snd other
>>> attachments are filtered out.
>>>
>>> Ole
>>>
>>> Ole J. Jacobsen
>>> Editor & Publisher
>>> The Internet Protocol Journal
>>> Office: +1 415 550-9433
>>> Cell: +1 415 370-4628
>>> UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
>>> Docomo Japan: +81 90 3337 9311?
>>> http://protocoljournal.org
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:24, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?Here is what my inbox looks like:
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that the emails from Yahoo still have the sender as the list
>>> name, the rest have the email address of the sender.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:09?AM, Scott Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> just one
>>>>>
>>>>> if Yahoo has a strict policy that might be blocking your receiving your
>>> mail from Yahoo
>>>>> through the list (Yahoo rejecting the mail because the From address
>>> says its coming
>>>>> from Yahoo but the Yahoo mailer knows its is coming from outside Yahoo)
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:07?PM, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting.  I still haven't seen the first message to the list that
>>> was the actual reply.  Not in my spam folder either. Let me know if you got
>>> two copies of this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> barbara
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 08:59:23 AM PST, Scott Bradner <
>>> sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got your previous message through the list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 12:07:48 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:07:48 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
 <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <953D80E9-2A41-4153-BBC7-065165F3ADE8@gmail.com>

Andy,

I asked Joe if the list could be changed so the sender would show the real sender (not the list name).   All of the other lists I subscribe to show the real sender (and I subscribe to a lot of lists, many use mailman).    

It seemed odd to me that this list was different.    

Bob


> On Feb 10, 2024, at 11:37?AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Gmail, I just compared my inbox with the archive. I've received every
> email that's in the archive. That said, I was explicitly copied on a number
> of them, so I'm not a good test case.
> 
> Also, neither I nor the archive received the reply that Alex M. claimed to
> have sent, although we both received his follow-up.
> 
> I did not receive Bob's image. My setting for images in digests had been
> "plain", so I've now changed it to MIME.
> 
> Even though it seems to be working for Gmail reception, it might be best to
> put it back the way it was, it seems much safer that way. I didn't mind the
> sender being rewritten, it's still clear who the author is of each email.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 2:29?PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>> As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for
>>> you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings
>> 
>> 
>> SPF is the only one of those that 'authorizes' transit hosts.
>> 
>> DKIM just creates a signature that might or might not get broken in
>> transit.  (For a mailing list, the might get changes to will get.)
>> 
>> ARC was created to permit mailing list transit.  It is complicated and
>> has had limited adoption.
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 12:08:44 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:08:44 +1300
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
 <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <72cdae19-380f-6f09-ce15-dd6986a05258@gmail.com>

On 11-Feb-24 08:37, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> On Gmail, I just compared my inbox with the archive. I've received every
> email that's in the archive. That said, I was explicitly copied on a number
> of them, so I'm not a good test case.
> 
> Also, neither I nor the archive received the reply that Alex M. claimed to
> have sent, although we both received his follow-up.
> 
> I did not receive Bob's image. My setting for images in digests had been
> "plain", so I've now changed it to MIME.

That's irrelevant (see my previous message).

> 
> Even though it seems to be working for Gmail reception, it might be best to
> put it back the way it was, it seems much safer that way. I didn't mind the
> sender being rewritten, it's still clear who the author is of each email.

Rewriting the sender is the only surefire way of being DMARC-proof. The
IETF method is superior, IMHO. Once the IETF has achieved its conversion
to Mailman 3 (due on Monday), maybe Joe could consider petitioning the IETF
to host this list?

Gmail is still reasonably user-friendly. Yahoo, not so much.

     Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 2:29?PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>> As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for
>>> you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings
>>
>>
>> SPF is the only one of those that 'authorizes' transit hosts.
>>
>> DKIM just creates a signature that might or might not get broken in
>> transit.  (For a mailing list, the might get changes to will get.)
>>
>> ARC was created to permit mailing list transit.  It is complicated and
>> has had limited adoption.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 12:09:32 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:09:32 +1300
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
 <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <946fa8cd-bf54-757c-7234-8731a1bfaf41@gmail.com>

On 11-Feb-24 08:37, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> On Gmail, I just compared my inbox with the archive. I've received every
> email that's in the archive. That said, I was explicitly copied on a number
> of them, so I'm not a good test case.
> 
> Also, neither I nor the archive received the reply that Alex M. claimed to
> have sent, although we both received his follow-up.
> 
> I did not receive Bob's image. My setting for images in digests had been
> "plain", so I've now changed it to MIME.

That's irrelevant (see my previous message).

> 
> Even though it seems to be working for Gmail reception, it might be best to
> put it back the way it was, it seems much safer that way. I didn't mind the
> sender being rewritten, it's still clear who the author is of each email.

Rewriting the sender is the only surefire way of being DMARC-proof. The
IETF method is superior, IMHO. Once the IETF has achieved its conversion
to Mailman 3 (due on Monday), maybe Joe could consider petitioning the IETF
to host this list?

Gmail is still reasonably user-friendly. Yahoo, not so much.

      Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 2:29?PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/10/2024 11:16 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>> As far as I have found, the only way to avoid such rejections is for
>>> you, the sender, to change your SPF/DKIM/DMARC settings
>>
>>
>> SPF is the only one of those that 'authorizes' transit hosts.
>>
>> DKIM just creates a signature that might or might not get broken in
>> transit.  (For a mailing list, the might get changes to will get.)
>>
>> ARC was created to permit mailing list transit.  It is complicated and
>> has had limited adoption.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>

From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb 10 12:23:05 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 10 Feb 2024 15:23:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>

It appears that touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com> said:
>It's going to the list archives.
>
>But this may be the downside of the new config - whether anyone gets a given message depends on EACH SENDER?s email coupled
>with EACH RECIPIENT?s requirements.
>
>For a list about Internet history, I?m starting to wonder if that?s desirable?.

Although I personally prefer the new setup that preserves the actual
author, people whose mail systems enforce DMARC, which definitely
includes Yahoo/AOL and mostly includes Gmail, are going to lose a lot of mail.

On the IETF lists, we use a hack I developed that rewrites addresses in a way
that is intended to be reversible.  In my original version fred at yahoo.com
turns into fred at yahoo.com.dmarc.fail (yes, that's a real address) and in the
IETF's version it's fred=40yahoo.com at dmarc.ietf.org.  

That works pretty well, give or take the rewritten versions getting
into people's address books, but it requires more mail system hackery
than we can expect ISOC to do.  So we're stuck putting the list name
on the From line.

R's,
John

PS: The commercial groups.io does something similar very well, but they're
kind of expensive if you have over 100 subscribers.


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb 10 12:25:06 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 10 Feb 2024 15:25:06 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <72cdae19-380f-6f09-ce15-dd6986a05258@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20240210202506.74D9B82BB3BC@ary.qy>

It appears that Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>Rewriting the sender is the only surefire way of being DMARC-proof. The
>IETF method is superior, IMHO. Once the IETF has achieved its conversion
>to Mailman 3 (due on Monday), maybe Joe could consider petitioning the IETF
>to host this list?

Not so fast.  We in the IETF have a whole lot of other mail stuff to fix first.

R's,
John


From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Feb 10 12:26:51 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 10 Feb 2024 15:26:51 -0500
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <953D80E9-2A41-4153-BBC7-065165F3ADE8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20240210202652.0F02B82BB429@ary.qy>

It appears that Bob Hinden <bob.hinden at gmail.com> said:
>Andy,
>
>I asked Joe if the list could be changed so the sender would show the real sender (not the list name).   All of the other
>lists I subscribe to show the real sender (and I subscribe to a lot of lists, many use mailman).    

If you look closer at the IETF lists, you'll see they rewrite the sender but in a less obvious way.

For the lists I'm on in other places, the Mailman lists all put the
list name on the From line. Some commercial ones like groups.io do a
per-address rewrite sort of like the IETF's.

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 12:35:17 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:35:17 -0800
Subject: [ih] Consider the mess
In-Reply-To: <6f1ab0c2-c2a8-497a-81ca-0ff02ae32ed0@dcrocker.net>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <6f1ab0c2-c2a8-497a-81ca-0ff02ae32ed0@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <abb6e012-5809-4d90-abb5-78cdc2facef7@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 11:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> enhanced use of DMARC


The convention for achieving successful delivery, when transiting a 
mailing is, in effect, to route around DMARC.

That is, the mailing list changes the From: field email address to be 
the mailing list rather than the original author. So a receiving site 
will not trigger DMARC analysis for the Author's domain name.

In effect, this means that the From: field has been coerced to be what 
the Sender: field is intended for.? Namely, an indication of a handler, 
not an author.

In order to preserve a clean copy of the actual author information, 
there is now a spec for an additional email address field, uncreatively 
named Author:.

The premise is that it can survive mailing list transit, unmodified.? 
There is a claim that bad actors will somehow abuse this, but I haven't 
seen an analysis of what that would be or why it would work.

However I also haven't seen any uptake for the Author: field.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 12:28:51 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:51 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <953D80E9-2A41-4153-BBC7-065165F3ADE8@gmail.com>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
 <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
 <953D80E9-2A41-4153-BBC7-065165F3ADE8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a7c7290b-67de-420d-944f-f954f680607d@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 12:07 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I asked Joe if the list could be changed so the sender would show the
> real sender (not the list name).   All of the other lists I subscribe to
>   show the real sender (and I subscribe to a lot of lists, many use
> mailman).

What exactly do you mean 'display the real sender'?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 12:36:14 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:36:14 -0800
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <a7c7290b-67de-420d-944f-f954f680607d@dcrocker.net>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
 <1aa1bd4e-5dd6-43e3-b109-c6ce2f955033@dcrocker.net>
 <CAA=duU0nWhxPOWLYi01ox7tJ4iP8gofuTZ7WOBFuicnziGt3og@mail.gmail.com>
 <953D80E9-2A41-4153-BBC7-065165F3ADE8@gmail.com>
 <a7c7290b-67de-420d-944f-f954f680607d@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <B8094155-2574-46FD-A9A8-3D5CE9A5DEE4@gmail.com>

Dave,

> On Feb 10, 2024, at 12:28?PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2024 12:07 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I asked Joe if the list could be changed so the sender would show the 
>> real sender (not the list name).   All of the other lists I subscribe to
>>  show the real sender (and I subscribe to a lot of lists, many use 
>> mailman).   
> What exactly do you mean 'display the real sender'?
> 
I mean the email address of the person who sent the mail to the list.    

Bob




From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 13:13:57 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:13:57 +1300
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <20240210202506.74D9B82BB3BC@ary.qy>
References: <20240210202506.74D9B82BB3BC@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <7dd2f2bd-e225-ce15-ccc0-b09162b53796@gmail.com>

On 11-Feb-24 09:25, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>> Rewriting the sender is the only surefire way of being DMARC-proof. The
>> IETF method is superior, IMHO. Once the IETF has achieved its conversion
>> to Mailman 3 (due on Monday), maybe Joe could consider petitioning the IETF
>> to host this list?
> 
> Not so fast.  We in the IETF have a whole lot of other mail stuff to fix first.

An endless battle, perhaps. But there's no rush, if this list reverts to the 'via' method. If not, some people will lose mail to DMARC policy.

    Brian


From geoff at iconia.com  Sat Feb 10 09:02:17 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:02:17 -0700
Subject: [ih] testing yours truly's iconia.com domain which has A Very
 Strict SPF/DMARC setting
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrh-oowJi5wt94J5tk7Y130+_yTdM9A4fYYzGskF9YCA5Q@mail.gmail.com>

how will this go?

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True


From geoff at iconia.com  Sat Feb 10 11:39:45 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:39:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] Email from Yahoo
In-Reply-To: <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
References: <90284BCB-FC83-44FC-96F0-E787D6FBC012@gmail.com>
 <D56DB929-B702-4688-B1A1-8476B8658FEF@me.com>
 <CAAFtm_VnYMbxM-rj-Kv6NJ_c_BbbOYBmNv7YG3Kh2nE6dfOunA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1DA9A833-E415-4064-A987-48E842482A39@strayalpha.com>
 <A52CD148-F92C-4299-837B-C5815B0CE14B@gmail.com>
 <D58C2AB4-724E-49A8-844A-8CCC9F6CBA58@strayalpha.com>
 <486280c8-5dd0-44b3-ab5b-04ce47cff8d6@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrh730P3Mue-w5KazkyvznCKUZV_2kMwjw_fEzKsOcKxtw@mail.gmail.com>

vis-a-vis:

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:16?PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> PS - using "reply all" to list messages can cause confusion.  Your reply
> may be sent not only to the list, but also to other addresses such as
> the person who sent the message you reply to.   It's common to get the
> same message multiple times - e.g., once through the distribution list
> and once through a direct path.   One may succeed and the other fail, or
> you might get both...
>
an added caveat to the above is that some MTA's (or maybe even
UA's) have automatic "duplicate" detection and elimination.. in that
two copies of the same message are summarily received, but only
one copy is put/seen in your Inbox (as is the case with gmail... :D)

g

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Feb 10 14:31:57 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:31:57 +1300
Subject: [ih] testing yours truly's iconia.com domain which has A Very
 Strict SPF/DMARC setting
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zrh-oowJi5wt94J5tk7Y130+_yTdM9A4fYYzGskF9YCA5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEf-zrh-oowJi5wt94J5tk7Y130+_yTdM9A4fYYzGskF9YCA5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f42dc2c7-1bdd-7317-d63b-2fa457633789@gmail.com>

The people whose mail system respects DMARC policy will never see your message via the list. (They should see mine.) But as usual, negatives are hard to prove. If everybody who didn't see your message could put their hands up, we might learn something.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 11-Feb-24 06:02, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote:
> how will this go?
> 


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Feb 10 15:00:00 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:00:00 -0800
Subject: [ih] testing yours truly's iconia.com domain which has A Very
 Strict SPF/DMARC setting
In-Reply-To: <f42dc2c7-1bdd-7317-d63b-2fa457633789@gmail.com>
References: <CAEf-zrh-oowJi5wt94J5tk7Y130+_yTdM9A4fYYzGskF9YCA5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f42dc2c7-1bdd-7317-d63b-2fa457633789@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fd7ef436-bed1-41dc-984a-4a26c6e64621@dcrocker.net>

On 2/10/2024 2:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> The people whose mail system respects DMARC policy will never see your 
> message via the list.

Just to be clear:? DMARC has different levels of severity and the 
'discard' setting is only one of them.

The slightly-good news is that few places follow DMARC's enforcement 
setting blindly.? It is simply additional input to the filtering engine.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From geoff at iconia.com  Sat Feb 10 15:00:53 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:00:53 -0700
Subject: [ih] testing yours truly's iconia.com domain which has A Very
 Strict SPF/DMARC setting
In-Reply-To: <f42dc2c7-1bdd-7317-d63b-2fa457633789@gmail.com>
References: <CAEf-zrh-oowJi5wt94J5tk7Y130+_yTdM9A4fYYzGskF9YCA5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f42dc2c7-1bdd-7317-d63b-2fa457633789@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zriYVhYtVpgHdVE-3XtP=Tk_3Gm8Lb2gse6pVcXoNjkmbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Brian! ?

btw -- by yours truly reckoning iconia.com is even STRICTER than yahoo,
viz.:

(and if the IH list wants to see: if you forward this reply to the list it
would be interesting to see who will get/see this reply from yours truly
via the IH list "directly" -vs.- who will (only) get/see this reply via
your forwarding it to the list)

*SPF:*

strange:*~*% host -t txt iconia.com

iconia.com descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:23.239.30.254/32 ip4:
66.228.61.115/32 ip4:178.79.137.113/32 ip6:2600:3c02:e000:dd::1/128
ip6:2a01:7e00:e000:21a::1/128 ip6:2600:3c00:e000:1c6::1/128 *-all*"

-vs.-

strange:*~*% host -t txt yahoo.com

yahoo.com descriptive text "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.mail.yahoo.com"

strange:*~*% host -t txt _spf.mail.yahoo.com

_spf.mail.yahoo.com descriptive text "v=spf1 ptr:yahoo.com ptr:yahoo.net
*?all*"


*DMARC:*

strange:*~*% host -t txt _dmarc.iconia.com

_dmarc.iconia.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=reject; aspf=s; adkim=s;
pct=100; fo=1; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports at iconia.com; ruf=mailto:
mailauth-reports at iconia.com; ri=86400"

-vs.-

strange:*~*% host -t txt _dmarc.yahoo.com

_dmarc.yahoo.com descriptive text "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:
d at rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d at ruf.agari.com;"


g


On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 3:32?PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> The people whose mail system respects DMARC policy will never see your
> message via the list. (They should see mine.) But as usual, negatives are
> hard to prove. If everybody who didn't see your message could put their
> hands up, we might learn something.
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 11-Feb-24 06:02, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history
> wrote:
> > how will this go?
> >
>
>

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Feb 10 17:08:37 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 17:08:37 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
Message-ID: <a8328f9f-f568-4178-8b6e-1dc5b6177f74@3kitty.org>

Getting back to the "history" focus...

In the ancient times of the Internet, 1970s and 1980s, email was 
considered a core function of the net.? The three major uses of the net 
were remote login to "your" computer far away, file transfers between 
computers that you were allowed to use, and electronic mail.?? 
Electronic mail was the only one which provided human-to-human 
communications with any user who had access to some computer on the net.

As a core function, the network management and technocracy made sure it 
all worked.? For example, when the Arpanet was split apart to become the 
Defense Data Network, "mailbridges" were put in place to assure that 
email could pass across the boundaries.? Mailbridges were effectively 
"forwarders" as we continue to use today.?? They were critical parts of 
the network service, and relied upon by many projects and 
organizations.? One example here: 
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA210749.pdf

To make this all work, lots of people were involved.? Techies had to 
plan, develop, and deploy the appropriate mechanisms.? Managers had to 
make sure all of the necessary components were funded and developed 
where necessary, and deployed in such a way to make email service 
continually reliable.

Some of these efforts were quite complicated, with significant planning 
and careful execution required.? For one example, see 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1133

"Forwarding" email was a core function of the network.?? Email had to 
always work.? Various "management" organizations, such as the US 
Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation, made it work.

Today (literally), it seems that email is broken and unreliable and 
there is little reason to believe it will improve.? Technical mechanisms 
may be inadequate, incomplete, or simply not deployed. Management, 
whoever that is for the Internet now, seems unaware or unconcerned or 
unable to fix it.? I've personally recently heard from non-technical 
users that their "email is broken".? They of course have no idea why or 
what to do about it.

In contrast, there are dozens, maybe more, alternatives to traditional 
Internet email.? Social media sites all offer ways to "message" others 
in their community silos.? Apps, e.g., Signal, Telegram, offer similar 
ways for humans to interact.?? Various "forums" on the Web provide ways 
to hold online discussions with organizational tools (e.g., 
"subreddits") that Internet email lacks.? All of these provide functions 
similar to traditional Internet email, but, as far as I can tell, none 
of them interoperate with anyone else.

As "mere mortal" Internet users notice the deteriorating situation, 
they're no doubt tempted to switch to some other, more reliable, system 
for communicating with their friends, organizations, corporate services, 
and even governments, if they offer some alternative way to interact.?? 
Personally I frequently get email from some sender (bank, medical, 
government) advising me to log in to their alternative system to read 
and respond to an important message.

Electronic mail used to be "the" mechanism for human-to-human 
communication over the 'net.? Now it seems to be just one of many 
"silos" of communications mechanisms that people can use, and the 
"important" email seems to be moving away from traditional email into 
one or more silos.?? Internet email seems to be rapidly evolving into 
the mechanism for "junk mail".

Am I wrong?? Am I missing something?

For history's sake, how did the reliability of network email get from 
the 1980s to today?

Jack Haverty


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240210/a938fd3a/attachment.asc>

From woody at pch.net  Sat Feb 10 22:11:58 2024
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:11:58 +0100
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <a8328f9f-f568-4178-8b6e-1dc5b6177f74@3kitty.org>
References: <a8328f9f-f568-4178-8b6e-1dc5b6177f74@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <A44238C9-CD3D-40AA-8355-0BC4239C2C92@pch.net>

> On Feb 11, 2024, at 02:08, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Electronic mail used to be "the" mechanism for human-to-human communication over the 'net.  Now it seems to be just one of many "silos" of communications mechanisms that people can use, and the "important" email seems to be moving away from traditional email into one or more silos.   Internet email seems to be rapidly evolving into the mechanism for "junk mail?.  For history's sake, how did the reliability of network email get from the 1980s to today?

This is a fight that we?re losing, right now, despite the efforts of folks like Bert Hubert.  The silos are, specifically, commercial proprietary walled gardens, as opposed to communication based on open standards, which anyone can write to.

I think spam was the beginning of the end for open-standards based email as it was originally envisioned.  By the time spam emerged as a problem serious enough to need fixing, many people perceived the installed base of email servers as being too big to accommodate a significant not-backwards-compatible change to the underlying protocol.  And, indeed, it might have been, at that time.  That was still during the period of growth in Internet competition, when there were low barriers to new-market-entry.  Then came 9/11 and the surveillance economy and ?free!!!? services, and competition began to contract.  As a smaller number of companies began to become abusive market-dominant actors, they were able to begin forcing non-backward-compatible changes, mostly under the guise of ?doing something about spam? in order to prevent new market entry and undermine self-hosted servers.  Recent studies have shown that Google and Microsoft have essentially succeeded in destroying all significant federation and independent email hosting out of every sector other than government and some higher-ed.  Which isn?t to say it no longer exists (we of course can?t use any external service providers, and a few companies like Proton continue to exist) but that it?s become statistically insignificant.  Which is, of course, how abusive market-dominant actors like it?  they have enough ?competition? to be able to point to when regulators come calling, but not enough to actually deprive them of any profits.

So, what to do about it?  

One approach would be using an end-to-end overlay, and (for instance) not send or accept any email which wasn?t PGP-encrypted.  It?s hard to get there, and it?s not clear how many people would be able to stick to a hard-line solution like that.  Nor how useful half-measures would be.  Three tiers of mailbox, one for signed/encrypted, one for other, one for junk?  I already have enough trouble with legit email showing up in my junk folder; typically 10-20 pieces per day of legit individual-to-individual correspondence, which is significant.  I?m not sure a third tier would make that better rather than worse.

Evangelism, and shaming people and organizations that try to outsource that core function, might work, but it feels like too little too late, at this point.  I was heartened to see a lot of public outrage about SIDN giving up on operating the .NL ccTLD registry? but it?s not clear that they?ll take it back, and now that they?ve given up, they?ll likely quickly lose the in-house competence needed to run it.  My worry is that, even though running a mailserver isn?t (or shouldn?t be, Google and Microsoft?s efforts aside) a difficult task, many organizations may already have lost even that basic competence.

Appliances.  There have been several attempts at bundling the usual open-source tools onto easy-to-deploy appliances (https://www.thehelm.com/ etc.) but they haven?t really panned out.  For folks more comfortable with doing their own sysadmin work and building something on top of server hardware, there are a number of reasonably fully-fledged bundles of open-source software (typically utilizing Dovecot, SquirrelMail, or Postfix), but they?re still quite a bit of work to install, configure, and maintain, and are reasonably fragile. The commercial-support-for-open-source-software business model has been getting more robust over time, but is also quite vulnerable to capture.  There?s little to nothing to prevent Google and Microsoft from buying (or co-opting, in the case of non-profits) such efforts, as they did with Red Hat, Git, Mozilla, etc.).

Brand new protocols.  This seems like the most likely to pan out in the long run.  The profusion of stupid little proprietary efforts which you noted indicates the degree of demand.  The problem is that too many people have either grown up, or become complacent, during the surveillance capitalism era, so they have little faith in open protocols and business models based on them.  The fediverse is a sort of encouraging swing of the pendulum back toward sanity, but it just isn?t built on actual open protocols actually designed by protocol designers?  ActivityPub is a steaming pile of web-front-end crap, and it?s not clear that it will ever be possible to whip it into a real open protocol.  But, that digression aside, it does seem like there?s demand.  Signal, for instance, may have the beginning of a protocol under it, if you ignore the company and the ?but we have to have your phone number!? prevarication.  I think we?ve all learned a lot of lessons with email, spam, PGP, MIME, etc., and a lot of us understand pretty clearly what a new protocol informed by those lessons would look like. It doesn?t need to be complicated, but it does need to have incentives aligned to prevent abuse from the get-go.  And it would make life a lot easier if a few of the major MUA folks, like Apple, particularly, would commit to it from day one, so everybody didn?t have to go looking in two different places for their ?email? style communication.  I believe that Apple killing support for XMPP is really what killed it for general use.  Up until Apple removed it from Messages, it was my primary real-time communication mechanism, and was for a lot of people I knew.  Having to split between XMPP for work and Apple proprietary for friends-and-family _using separate tools_ was just a bridge too far.

What do other people think?

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240211/64b5d80b/attachment.asc>

From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Sun Feb 11 03:47:05 2024
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 06:47:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
Message-ID: <20240211114705.6FF6E18C08B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Jack Haverty

    > Internet email seems to be rapidly evolving into the mechanism for
    > "junk mail". ... For history's sake, how did the reliability of network
    > email get from the 1980s to today?

This isn't really history, but I'll allow myself a very brief reply: "tragedy
of the commons". i) It's free (as in, those who use it don't bear most of the
cost of providing it), plus ii) human nature.

You can't change ii). Is it even possible, at this point, to change i) - and
if we did, would it be anything like the email you loved?

	Noel


From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Sun Feb 11 08:10:26 2024
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:10:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>
References: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
 <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>

I'm under the impression that this is the problem that ARC is supposed to
solve. The email intermediary, namely the list itself, can use ARC to
certify that it confirmed the signatures on the earlier hops in the
delivery path.

It's been widely published that Google and Yahoo! Started requiring DMARC
reports as of February 1st and that they would start statistically not
deliver mail from domains not using DMARC.   (Yahoo provides mail service
for at least 5 large ISPs)

It's amusing that they didn't require any specific DMARC actions, only that
you turn on the reports; but once you have the reports, bugs and
configuration problems become glaringly obvious; and once you fix them
sammers forging email from your domain become glaringly obvious; and then
when you change the disposition to quarantine (request that downstream MTAs
treat signature violations as spam); the spammers go away.

Unless the email wizards missed something it appears that as DMARC rolls
out we will have strong end-to-end cryptographic signatures of the ISP
which authenticated the human originating every message.

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024, 12:23?PM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

> It appears that touch at strayalpha.com <touch at strayalpha.com> said:
> >It's going to the list archives.
> >
> >But this may be the downside of the new config - whether anyone gets a
> given message depends on EACH SENDER?s email coupled
> >with EACH RECIPIENT?s requirements.
> >
> >For a list about Internet history, I?m starting to wonder if that?s
> desirable?.
>
> Although I personally prefer the new setup that preserves the actual
> author, people whose mail systems enforce DMARC, which definitely
> includes Yahoo/AOL and mostly includes Gmail, are going to lose a lot of
> mail.
>
> On the IETF lists, we use a hack I developed that rewrites addresses in a
> way
> that is intended to be reversible.  In my original version fred at yahoo.com
> turns into fred at yahoo.com.dmarc.fail (yes, that's a real address) and in
> the
> IETF's version it's fred=40yahoo.com at dmarc.ietf.org.
>
> That works pretty well, give or take the rewritten versions getting
> into people's address books, but it requires more mail system hackery
> than we can expect ISOC to do.  So we're stuck putting the list name
> on the From line.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS: The commercial groups.io does something similar very well, but they're
> kind of expensive if you have over 100 subscribers.
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb 11 08:32:28 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 11 Feb 2024 11:32:28 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
 <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>
 <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9a62c331-0855-41a6-69a6-a2fe28559210@iecc.com>

> I'm under the impression that this is the problem that ARC is supposed to
> solve. The email intermediary, namely the list itself, can use ARC to
> certify that it confirmed the signatures on the earlier hops in the
> delivery path.

Right.

> It's amusing that they didn't require any specific DMARC actions, only that
> you turn on the reports; but once you have the reports, bugs and
> configuration problems become glaringly obvious; and once you fix them
> sammers forging email from your domain become glaringly obvious; and then
> when you change the disposition to quarantine (request that downstream MTAs
> treat signature violations as spam); the spammers go away.

I have had DMARC with p=none for a decade and have collected over 390,000 
reports.  I have yet to see a reason to change the policy from none.

Unless you are a bank or a large famous organization, spammers don't care 
about you, although there are plenty of people whose business models 
depend on persuading everyone that p=reject is essential.

> Unless the email wizards missed something it appears that as DMARC rolls
> out we will have strong end-to-end cryptographic signatures of the ISP
> which authenticated the human originating every message.

The vast majority of senders have been signing mail with DKIM for a 
decade.  This is not new.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Feb 11 08:36:30 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:36:30 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
 <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>
 <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <73462fc7-7406-4c5c-b0bf-aaf00e68b77f@dcrocker.net>

On 2/11/2024 8:10 AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history wrote:
> I'm under the impression that this is the problem that ARC is supposed to
> solve.

It is.? It is also complex and has had very limited uptake.



> The email intermediary, namely the list itself, can use ARC to
> certify that it confirmed the signatures on the earlier hops in the
> delivery path.

Besides the underlying complexity of the mechanism itself, it requires a 
new, and different, type of reputation analysis: Should statements of 
the ARC signer be believed?? And then it requires modifying the 
filtering engine to use this indirect vetting.



> It's been widely published that Google and Yahoo! Started requiring DMARC
> reports as of February 1st and that they would start statistically not
> deliver mail from domains not using DMARC.   (Yahoo provides mail service
> for at least 5 large ISPs)

That's not quite what they said they require:? they limited the 
requirement to bulk senders.


> It's amusing that they didn't require any specific DMARC actions, only that

DMARC effectively provides 3 functions:

 1. Validation of the From: email address domain name.? So, it is an
    added authentication semantic, claiming a degree of validation of
    the author's address.
 2. A requested handling of non-validating messages
 3. A reporting mechanism, for receivers to tell senders what they got,
    purporting to be from the sender's domain

The new operational requirement enforces function #1 on bulk senders.? 
That's a pretty significant step, even without the other 2 functions.



> you turn on the reports; but once you have the reports, bugs and
> configuration problems become glaringly obvious;

When DMARC was being developed, my own reaction was the the reporting 
function would likely be the biggest benefit.? I haven't tracked this in 
detail, but I gather it's had some mixed results, though it probably 
does have the benefit you cite, during initial stages of using DMARC.



>   and once you fix them
> sammers forging email from your domain become glaringly obvious; and then
> when you change the disposition to quarantine (request that downstream MTAs
> treat signature violations as spam); the spammers go away.

No they don't.? They merelystop playing the game of spoofing the From: 
field.? And that game has never been always played, when sending spam.

First, note that users these days typically don't see the From: field 
email address and even when they see it it does not alter their 
susceptibility to spammy content.

Second, DMARC is useful because failures correlate with spam, not 
because spam has to spoof From: field addresses.

Finally, note that the From: field rewriting done by mailing lists 
demonstrates how easy it is to route around DMARC.



> Unless the email wizards missed something it appears that as DMARC rolls
> out we will have strong end-to-end cryptographic signatures of the ISP
> which authenticated the human originating every message.

It doesn't actually authenticate the author.? It authenticates the 
author's domain.? In shared environment -- statistically, that is all 
the email addresses in the world -- the semantic difference is significant.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb 11 09:08:42 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 11 Feb 2024 12:08:42 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <73462fc7-7406-4c5c-b0bf-aaf00e68b77f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20240211170843.2C7ED82C9384@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>> you turn on the reports; but once you have the reports, bugs and
>> configuration problems become glaringly obvious;
>
>When DMARC was being developed, my own reaction was the the reporting 
>function would likely be the biggest benefit.? I haven't tracked this in 
>detail, but I gather it's had some mixed results, though it probably 
>does have the benefit you cite, during initial stages of using DMARC.

There's a bunch of companies including Agari, Dmarcian, Redsift, and
Validity that provide elaborate analysis of DMARC reports so I think
it's safe to say a lot of people find them useful. Having talked to
most of them, I hear that for many companies just finding out who's
sending their mail can be quite interesting. It lets them prune rogue
(not necessarily malicions but unauthorizzed) senders both within the
orgqanization and outsourced.

R's,
John





From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Sun Feb 11 09:26:46 2024
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:26:46 -0800
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <73462fc7-7406-4c5c-b0bf-aaf00e68b77f@dcrocker.net>
References: <29773C08-A933-4C7B-AC90-700AF37BF3E8@strayalpha.com>
 <20240210202306.3A25382BB337@ary.qy>
 <CA+s1KQEF37GWq_XmkTKp1hb+CN=DMV_rq8+3wF0fGyWt8P=z7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <73462fc7-7406-4c5c-b0bf-aaf00e68b77f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQEaQ1zSa=zdrAvvjWV-R5rYfMDwXEB=5Dfdvq+tOkg4-g@mail.gmail.com>

inline

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 8:36?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 2/11/2024 8:10 AM, Matt Mathis via Internet-history wrote:
> > I'm under the impression that this is the problem that ARC is supposed to
> > solve.
>
> It is.  It is also complex and has had very limited uptake.
>

The Feb 1st change is pretty clearly intended to force uptake, and foster
large scale debugging.

> The email intermediary, namely the list itself, can use ARC to
> > certify that it confirmed the signatures on the earlier hops in the
> > delivery path.
>
> Besides the underlying complexity of the mechanism itself, it requires a
> new, and different, type of reputation analysis: Should statements of
> the ARC signer be believed?  And then it requires modifying the
> filtering engine to use this indirect vetting.
>
>
>
> > It's been widely published that Google and Yahoo! Started requiring DMARC
> > reports as of February 1st and that they would start statistically not
> > deliver mail from domains not using DMARC.   (Yahoo provides mail service
> > for at least 5 large ISPs)
>
> That's not quite what they said they require:  they limited the
> requirement to bulk senders.
>

However, as a small domain that is a client of Mailchimp, we seemed to be
included.   Nearly all of the pieces were there, once our hosting company
updated their DKIM credentials, and I walked through Mailchimp's procedure
to add them to our DNS.


> > It's amusing that they didn't require any specific DMARC actions, only
> that
>
> DMARC effectively provides 3 functions:
>
>  1. Validation of the From: email address domain name.  So, it is an
>     added authentication semantic, claiming a degree of validation of
>     the author's address.
>  2. A requested handling of non-validating messages
>  3. A reporting mechanism, for receivers to tell senders what they got,
>     purporting to be from the sender's domain
>
> The new operational requirement enforces function #1 on bulk senders.
> That's a pretty significant step, even without the other 2 functions.
>
> Actually the errors from google pointed to instructions for #3 - they only
required turning on reporting.   However, once I started looking at the
reports, other things got fixed, which was my point.


> > you turn on the reports; but once you have the reports, bugs and
> > configuration problems become glaringly obvious;
>
> When DMARC was being developed, my own reaction was the the reporting
> function would likely be the biggest benefit.  I haven't tracked this in
> detail, but I gather it's had some mixed results, though it probably
> does have the benefit you cite, during initial stages of using DMARC.
>

Most of my Internet career can be summed up "Exposing hidden bugs, to cause
others to fix them".   I do not have enough extertice to be able to tell
if  DKIM/SPF/ARC/DMARC have any remaining holes

>   and once you fix them
> > sammers forging email from your domain become glaringly obvious; and then
> > when you change the disposition to quarantine (request that downstream
> MTAs
> > treat signature violations as spam); the spammers go away.
>
> No they don't.  They merelystop playing the game of spoofing the From:
> field.  And that game has never been always played, when sending spam.
>
I should have said that spammers will have to stop forging addresses.
 Sender reputations and content scanning will still be needed (Furthermore
since Feb 1st, somebody created a gmail account masquerading as my wife...)


> First, note that users these days typically don't see the From: field
> email address and even when they see it it does not alter their
> susceptibility to spammy content.
>
> Second, DMARC is useful because failures correlate with spam, not
> because spam has to spoof From: field addresses.
>
> Finally, note that the From: field rewriting done by mailing lists
> demonstrates how easy it is to route around DMARC.
>

I suspect that many (most?) (all?)  fail SPF and or DKIM, but the policies
are set to none, so the messages get delivered anyhow.  Both SPF and DKIM
have the problem that they can't easily be tested and monitored at scale,
so they are dangerous to your own users to turn them on.   DMARC reporting
fixes this specific problem.


>
>
> > Unless the email wizards missed something it appears that as DMARC rolls
> > out we will have strong end-to-end cryptographic signatures of the ISP
> > which authenticated the human originating every message.
>
> It doesn't actually authenticate the author.  It authenticates the
> author's domain.  In shared environment -- statistically, that is all
> the email addresses in the world -- the semantic difference is significant.
>

Like I said, it authenticates the ISP that authenticated the human.   This
is very robust for some ISP (e.g. with other business relationships with
the customer), but not so much for free accounts provided by the likes
gmail and others.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.


> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sun Feb 11 09:04:35 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:04:35 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240211114705.6FF6E18C08B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20240211114705.6FF6E18C08B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <4FFE5192-B686-4061-8C54-D02DDF34F4C3@icloud.com>

The ''tragedy of the commons'' has come up in many discussions about how the Internet works.  For example, this thread from about twenty years ago about it [1] on the ASRG (Anti-Spam Research Group) [2] list.

--gregbo

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asrg/eCIvZNUIY60iiG22BbX3rZcw4ww/
[2] https://www.irtf.org/concluded/asrg.html

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sun Feb 11 09:13:47 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 09:13:47 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240211114705.6FF6E18C08B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20240211114705.6FF6E18C08B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <3FED3C83-6AC1-4C98-9119-F1AB44F3F371@icloud.com>

The ''tragedy of the commons'' has come up in many discussions about how the Internet works.  For example, this thread from about twenty years ago about it [1] on the ASRG (Anti-Spam Research Group) [2] list.

--gregbo

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asrg/eCIvZNUIY60iiG22BbX3rZcw4ww/
[2] https://www.irtf.org/concluded/asrg.html

From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb 11 09:58:53 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 11 Feb 2024 12:58:53 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <a8328f9f-f568-4178-8b6e-1dc5b6177f74@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20240211175853.EF9C482C9AFB@ary.qy>

It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>Today (literally), it seems that email is broken and unreliable and 
>there is little reason to believe it will improve.? Technical mechanisms 
>may be inadequate, incomplete, or simply not deployed. Management, 
>whoever that is for the Internet now, seems unaware or unconcerned or 
>unable to fix it.? I've personally recently heard from non-technical 
>users that their "email is broken".? They of course have no idea why or 
>what to do about it.

We are not typical mail users and I would not overgeneralize from our
individual experience. Discussion lists this one are without a doubt
the most screwed up part of the mail world, but we are maybe 1% of the
total mail users.

Normal person to person mail still works pretty well. There are
certainly glitches but when I ask people who claim it's totally
broken, it usually turns out that the problem is that they're
doing something like sending 50 copies of a message to people
they don't usually correspond with.

And the people who run mail systems definitely care that they work, I
go to meetings and talk to them all the time.  Spammers and other
crooks are persistent enough that it's a bad idea to talk about
spam filtering and other mail security in public in other than
the most general terms.

R's,
John


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb 11 10:01:57 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 11 Feb 2024 13:01:57 -0500
Subject: [ih] Various tests
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQEaQ1zSa=zdrAvvjWV-R5rYfMDwXEB=5Dfdvq+tOkg4-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20240211180157.B4B0482C9B83@ary.qy>

It appears that Matt Mathis via Internet-history <matt.mathis at gmail.com> said:
>> That's not quite what they said they require:  they limited the
>> requirement to bulk senders.
>
>However, as a small domain that is a client of Mailchimp, we seemed to be
>included.   Nearly all of the pieces were there, once our hosting company
>updated their DKIM credentials, and I walked through Mailchimp's procedure
>to add them to our DNS.

If you're sending through Mailchimp, you're a bulk sender.  They're pretty
good at getting their customers set up.

R's,
John

PS:

>> Finally, note that the From: field rewriting done by mailing lists
>> demonstrates how easy it is to route around DMARC.
>
>I suspect that many (most?) (all?)  fail SPF and or DKIM, but the policies
>are set to none, so the messages get delivered anyhow.

Having been dealing with this for many years, let me just say that is wildly
at variance with my experience.


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Feb 11 11:23:42 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 11 Feb 2024 14:23:42 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <A44238C9-CD3D-40AA-8355-0BC4239C2C92@pch.net>
Message-ID: <20240211192343.7516182CC5C6@ary.qy>

It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>So, what to do about it?  
>
>One approach would be using an end-to-end overlay, and (for instance) not send or accept any email which wasn?t PGP-encrypted. ...

This is unfortunately another one of those Well Known Bad Ideas. There
is no reason to assume that authenticated or encrypted mail is mail
you want since bad guys can do that, too. Considering the amount of
malicious mail, you want some sort of malware filter, but you can't do
that without decrypting it first.

A related approach is only accept mail from people you know, but that
replaces the spam problem with the introduction problem which is, if
anything, harder.  Or you give up and, as you note, only talk to
people within your bubble.

While I don't think there is a general solution to the spam problem,
some of the related issues have solutions that are frustratingly close
to easy. For example, the entire mailing list problem would be solved
if lists could wrap messages sort of like single-message digests. The
wrapping is easy, MIME rfc822 attachments were defined in the 1990s.
But hardly any user mail programs and no web mail display them well
and even fewer treat the wrapped messsages as messages and let you
reply to them. So we're stuck.

We put a lot of discussion of this stuff on the ASRG wiki.  It hasn't been
updated in a long time, but nothing of importance has changed.

https://wiki.asrg.sp.am

(If anyone would like to update it, ask me for a password.)

R's,
John


From dave.taht at gmail.com  Sun Feb 11 22:49:22 2024
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 01:49:22 -0500
Subject: [ih] State of the net 2024 today
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4k=WEdyfj4rBnBidiqkgzcm1V_d8O8x1P=8fU8rxtG9A@mail.gmail.com>

Of possible interest to those here, today (feb 12) there appears to be
a big meeting of principally government officials from the NTIA, FCC,
FTC, and others, about the internet, here:

https://sotn24.sched.com/

(tickets are free and still available)

In terms of the appropriateness of me mentioning this on this list,
well it will be internet history, tomorrow. I am especially looking
forward to the "ditch the glitch" talk, and what a so far ghost FCC
commissioner, Anna Gomez, has to say, in general, and then there is
all the AI stuff, a trillion here, a trillion there, soon someone
might talk about real money.


-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Feb 12 11:30:15 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 12 Feb 2024 14:30:15 -0500
Subject: [ih] Ancient mail question about 551 and 251 reply codes
Message-ID: <20240212193015.E5D5582DDAF4@ary.qy>

For a very long time SMTP has had the 251 and 551 reply codes which
say that the recipient is somewhere else and give the new address. 251
means the reciving system accepts the message and will presumably
forward it, while 551 rejects the message so you're supposed to resend
it yourself. They were introduced in a different form in RFC772 in
1980 and in the current form in RFC780 in 1981.

My question is whether anyone has actually done anything with these,
like resend the message to the new address, or update address books,
or at least report the reply to the sender somehow. I don't ever
recall it, but in 1980 I was still on uucp.

R's,
John, uucp at computer.org



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Feb 12 12:54:02 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:54:02 -0800
Subject: [ih] Ancient mail question about 551 and 251 reply codes
In-Reply-To: <20240212193015.E5D5582DDAF4@ary.qy>
References: <20240212193015.E5D5582DDAF4@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <bf80eed6-ef71-4e42-b429-d4bfd33f7201@3kitty.org>

In the early 1970s, Licklider's work at MIT pursued his vision of a 
"galactic network" in which users' computers would interact with other 
users' computers over a wide-area network to help the users do 
everything they do in life.? Human-human communications was part of that 
vision, initially instantiated in email implementations. Lick's group at 
MIT built such a mail system; I built the server component.

As a model, we used what we knew, which was the US Postal System. Our 
projects called it "messaging" to avoid any conflict with the "snail 
mail" bureaucracy which had a mandated legal monopoly on "mail".

IIRC (been a long time...) the Postal System at the time had several 
means of handling people who had moved.? First class mail was forwarded 
to the new address for a year or so.? Less-important mail was returned 
to the sender with a label indicating that the addressee had moved.

I don't remember, but I was probably lobbying for the 251 and 551 codes 
to be added to the official protocol, as a way to mimic the behavior of 
the snail mail system.? My server also probably sent those messages out 
during SMTP interactions, and may have done something with any such 
errors it received (at least reflecting the error back to the original 
sender).?? I do remember that our users would get error reports as email 
from the message server, e.g., to report that a message remains 
undelivered after trying for a while (days) but the remote host was 
consistently down.?? I recall spending some time to make such messages 
"user friendly", e.g., something like "Excuse me, but you might want to 
know that your message concerning <subject> that you sent on <date> has 
not yet been delivered."

I don't recall that we ever actually received any such errors from other 
SMTP systems on the Arpanet.?? Few other systems seemed interested in 
going beyond the very basic mail functionality that had started as a 
simple addition to FTP.? Our mission in Lick's group was to research 
human-human communications.? Other sites on the network were focused on 
other research topics.

We also lobbied for electronic "stamps" as a way to provide some 
back-pressure as a limiting mechanism for spam.? No one like that either.

If you can find archives of the "HEADER-PEOPLE at MIT-AI" mailing list, it 
would be a good source of such historical artifacts about email.

Jack Haverty
(MIT 1966-1977)

On 2/12/24 11:30, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> For a very long time SMTP has had the 251 and 551 reply codes which
> say that the recipient is somewhere else and give the new address. 251
> means the reciving system accepts the message and will presumably
> forward it, while 551 rejects the message so you're supposed to resend
> it yourself. They were introduced in a different form in RFC772 in
> 1980 and in the current form in RFC780 in 1981.
>
> My question is whether anyone has actually done anything with these,
> like resend the message to the new address, or update address books,
> or at least report the reply to the sender somehow. I don't ever
> recall it, but in 1980 I was still on uucp.
>
> R's,
> John,uucp at computer.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240212/f8d1768b/attachment.asc>

From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Mon Feb 12 14:39:42 2024
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:39:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] Ancient mail question about 551 and 251 reply codes
Message-ID: <20240212223942.5BFD118C08E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Jack Haverty

    > If you can find archives of the "HEADER-PEOPLE at MIT-AI" mailing list

I have a copy squirreled away:

  http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/header/

(Google doesn't seem to know of any other copies, which I tested for by
looking for a string from the first message: "message was NOT sent to anyone
at Multics" - no hits - not even my set!)

That set is missing the first two volumes, alas. (If anyone knows where a
copy might be, please let me know.)

	Noel


From johnl at iecc.com  Tue Feb 13 06:38:41 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 13 Feb 2024 09:38:41 -0500
Subject: [ih] Ancient mail question about 551 and 251 reply codes
In-Reply-To: <bf80eed6-ef71-4e42-b429-d4bfd33f7201@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20240213143842.0037882EB700@ary.qy>

It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>I don't recall that we ever actually received any such errors from other 
>SMTP systems on the Arpanet.?? Few other systems seemed interested in 
>going beyond the very basic mail functionality that had started as a 
>simple addition to FTP.? Our mission in Lick's group was to research 
>human-human communications.? Other sites on the network were focused on 
>other research topics.

OK, thanks.  That's about what I expected.

>We also lobbied for electronic "stamps" as a way to provide some 
>back-pressure as a limiting mechanism for spam.? No one like that either.

E-postage is the bad idea that just won't go away.  I wrote a white paper
on it 20 years ago.  Nothing has changed since then except that you might
add a few zeros here and there:

https://taugh.com/epostage.pdf

R's,
John

>If you can find archives of the "HEADER-PEOPLE at MIT-AI" mailing list, it 
>would be a good source of such historical artifacts about email.

I downloaded the copy someone else posted about.  The only reference to
251 and 551 are in a draft of what became RFC 1123.


From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sun Feb 11 14:22:24 2024
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:22:24 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240211175853.EF9C482C9AFB@ary.qy>
References: <20240211175853.EF9C482C9AFB@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <112f29c2-5896-be6f-f462-bb5734a400da@meetinghouse.net>

John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>> Today (literally), it seems that email is broken and unreliable and
>> there is little reason to believe it will improve.? Technical mechanisms
>> may be inadequate, incomplete, or simply not deployed. Management,
>> whoever that is for the Internet now, seems unaware or unconcerned or
>> unable to fix it.? I've personally recently heard from non-technical
>> users that their "email is broken".? They of course have no idea why or
>> what to do about it.
> We are not typical mail users and I would not overgeneralize from our
> individual experience. Discussion lists this one are without a doubt
> the most screwed up part of the mail world, but we are maybe 1% of the
> total mail users.
>
> Normal person to person mail still works pretty well. There are
> certainly glitches but when I ask people who claim it's totally
> broken, it usually turns out that the problem is that they're
> doing something like sending 50 copies of a message to people
> they don't usually correspond with.
>
> And the people who run mail systems definitely care that they work, I
> go to meetings and talk to them all the time.  Spammers and other
> crooks are persistent enough that it's a bad idea to talk about
> spam filtering and other mail security in public in other than
> the most general terms.
>
>
Maybe not typical - but the folks who built email for use as an 
enterprise communications tool - particularly for use on projects that 
cross organizations:? Education, Academic Publishing, development 
communities, ... .

The audience & uses have expanded, to the extent that email has largely 
replaced postal mail - but the community has not put the same attention 
into maintaining the "system," as we do for postal mail, or, for that 
matter, telephone & now txt services.? Yes, spam is a problem for postal 
mail, phones, and txt - but we don't insert "moderators" in the process, 
nor block stuff without explicit instructions.

And, funny thing, don't we have an "email privacy act" that should be 
protecting us from a lot of the recent anti-spam & anti-offense mechanisms?

We seem to have made great strides in things like governing IP address 
assignment, securing routing mechanisms, and such - and put a lot of 
effort into setting up the quasi-regulatory processes around ICANN - but 
we've let folks go wild with mucking up the email environment.? This 
just strikes me as wrong - letting political & consumer considerations 
get in the way of what's essentially an enterprise communications platform.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown



From johnl at iecc.com  Tue Feb 13 12:17:44 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 13 Feb 2024 15:17:44 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <112f29c2-5896-be6f-f462-bb5734a400da@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>

It appears that Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> said:
>matter, telephone & now txt services.? Yes, spam is a problem for postal 
>mail, phones, and txt - but we don't insert "moderators" in the process, 
>nor block stuff without explicit instructions.

You might be surprised at what your mobile carrier is doing with calls
that don't have STIR/SHAKEN signatures they recognize. There are plans
to do similar things with SMS.

>And, funny thing, don't we have an "email privacy act" that should be 
>protecting us from a lot of the recent anti-spam & anti-offense mechanisms?

Certainly not in the U.S.  Some people claim there's one in Germany but it
seems to be a rather strained interpretation of the law.

47 USC 230 has repeatedly been interpreted to protect ISP spam filtering.

R's,
John

PS: This doesn't have a lot to do with Internet history.


From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Feb 13 13:41:23 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:41:23 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>
References: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <a9809640-69b7-4f5a-8e9d-01db33463956@3kitty.org>

On 2/13/24 12:17, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> PS: This doesn't have a lot to do with Internet history.

getting back to history...?? Noel's archive of HEADER-PEOPLE mail should 
be interesting to historians.?? The oldest archive (1976) is for me a 
nostalgic return to the discussions, debates, flame wars, and battles 
that produced what we're still using today.?? I still have the scars.

http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/header/mins02.txt

FYI, I was JFH at MIT-DM.? Looking at those mail exchanges now can give you 
a feeling for what the process of "research" was like in the then-new 
world of networking in the early 1970s.? IMHO, the traditional world of 
academia, involving papers published and critiqued in learned journals, 
talks at conferences, and letters exchanged between pairs of researchers 
was rapidly being replaced by online interactions such as are captured 
in those archives.?? I admit being guilty of "pushing the envelope" a 
bit -- e.g., one of the emails I sent required an hour to be transmitted 
across the Arpanet.

RFCs existed as an online form of traditional debate, as indicated by 
their name - "Request For Comments".? I even wrote a few, but I don't 
remember ever seeing any comments in subsequent RFCs.? Such comments 
occurred on the email lists and unfortunately were ephemeral so much of 
the ongoing debate, discussions, proposals, and such have been lost - 
unless someone like Noel somehow saved them. There were many other lists 
similar to HEADER-PEOPLE addressing different topics.

If you read through that HEADER-PEOPLE archive above, you'll get a feel 
for the way the network community worked 50 years ago as we were all 
just trying to figure out how to use this new communications medium.?? 
It was clear that its utility should be more than just logging in to 
your remote computer or transferring files between your computers.

You might also notice that many of the issues related to email that were 
brought up as problems to be solved, 50 years ago, still plague us today.

In particular the intense debates recorded in that 1976 archive about 
"simple" versus "complicated" email mechanisms eventually settled into a 
decision to first produce a "simple" mechanism as an interim solution, 
to be later replaced with a more capable scheme for email.? That was the 
"S" in SMTP - the SIMPLE mail transport protocol.

The next generation was still to be researched but that work pretty much 
stopped as the focus shifted to implementing SMTP.? RFC713 was one piece 
we (Lick's group) proposed as a basis for exchanging data structures 
across the network, to facilitate computers to interact with other 
computers.? It was never implemented but today things like XML, JSON, et 
al provide similar capabilities.

Jack Haverty




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240213/b4d04974/attachment.asc>

From woody at pch.net  Tue Feb 13 14:22:56 2024
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:22:56 +0100
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240211192343.7516182CC5C6@ary.qy>
References: <20240211192343.7516182CC5C6@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <DE1D96F4-5B6E-4AF8-AC8F-77972622BE06@pch.net>



> On Feb 11, 2024, at 20:23, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>> So, what to do about it?  
>> One approach would be using an end-to-end overlay, and (for instance) not send or accept any email which wasn?t PGP-encrypted. ...
> This is unfortunately another one of those Well Known Bad Ideas.

Yes, that was one of my points, however I figured it should be addressed because it seems to be most people's default first resort.

For the reasons you and I both stated, it doesn?t scale, and it doesn?t actually solve the problem, it just layers more work on top.

> I don't think there is a general solution to the spam problem

Micropayment bonds.  Yes, retrofitting that onto the current system of email would be very difficult.  Building it into a new communications medium would in fact entirely deal with spam, provided it were implemented securely and wasn?t easily bypassed.  No system is perfect.  But we?ve gotten well beyond the point in the history of the Internet where we can make the very large investment of developing a new open protocol without assuming bad-faith abuse from the outset, and addressing it.  I think the SKS keyserver network demonstrated that: a relatively obscure service, built by and for its user community, which was solving a real problem, and replaced a much more naive design which also had no built-in resistance to attack.  Lasted just long enough for people to invest heavily in deployment, and then someone destroyed it out of spite, or to make the point that it didn?t prevent abuse, or something.  If we can?t ignore abuse when we?re that far outside the public view, we definitely can?t ignore it on anything public-facing.  And that means structurally-aligned incentives, built in from the get-go.  Want to send a message?  Be prepared to pay to do so.

I pay for stamps, I pay FedEx and DHL, I pay LinkedIn for the privilege of sending ?in-mail,? and I pay for Signal, despite its faults. I?ll happily pay a bit to support a functional electronic messaging system.

> The entire mailing list problem would be solved if lists could wrap messages sort of like single-message digests. The wrapping is easy, MIME rfc822 attachments were defined in the 1990s. But hardly any user mail programs and no web mail display them well and even fewer treat the wrapped messsages as messages and let you reply to them. So we're stuck.

The installed-base-drag problem that new tiny walled gardens don?t have to deal with.  I?m just not convinced that we?re ever going to get past the dilemma of backward-compatibility and fixing things?  If we fix things but maintain full backward compatibility, people who don?t feel like doing the work can continue right on doing things the old way, and the fix doesn?t get implemented.

Hypothetically, there could be things that would get fixed for the people who do the work, and don?t get fixed for the people who laze about, but I think that?s a small subset of problems that have sweet-spot solutions with that effect.

Which brings us back to: if we really want to solve these problems, we may have to apply the lessons learned and implement them in a new protocol, which isn?t backwards-compatible with email, except through application-layer gateways, which would have to obey the new rules on their new side.  And that?s the heavy lift: if it?s not done as an open protocol, you get a ton of little half-assed walled gardens, as we see with text and video chat, post-XMPP.  And if it is done as an open protocol, all the walled-garden idiots come out of the woodwork to try to sabotage it, and you wind up with IPv6: all the features you really want stripped out, because consensus can?t be reached.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240213/497fa5f6/attachment.asc>

From johnl at iecc.com  Tue Feb 13 14:39:40 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 13 Feb 2024 17:39:40 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <DE1D96F4-5B6E-4AF8-AC8F-77972622BE06@pch.net>
References: <20240211192343.7516182CC5C6@ary.qy>
 <DE1D96F4-5B6E-4AF8-AC8F-77972622BE06@pch.net>
Message-ID: <ee3bda51-3c51-191c-40a2-b02eac033d57@iecc.com>

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Micropayment bonds.  Yes, retrofitting that onto the current system of 
> email would be very difficult. ...

Gee, it seems like just yesterday that I was saying e-postage is the bad 
idea that just won't go away.  Here's the white paper again:

https://taugh.com/epostage.pdf

tl;dr if you could make it work, which is a big if, the problems with the 
payments would be way worse than the problems with spam since you'd be 
dealing with real money.

At this point the only systems that seem able to deal with spam are ones 
with a central point of control, which is not encouraging.

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Tue Feb 13 15:00:31 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:00:31 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <ee3bda51-3c51-191c-40a2-b02eac033d57@iecc.com>
References: <20240211192343.7516182CC5C6@ary.qy>
 <DE1D96F4-5B6E-4AF8-AC8F-77972622BE06@pch.net>
 <ee3bda51-3c51-191c-40a2-b02eac033d57@iecc.com>
Message-ID: <a5803bd1-673e-40bf-9bfc-6d4151532535@dcrocker.net>

On 2/13/2024 2:39 PM, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Micropayment bonds.? Yes, retrofitting that onto the current system 
>> of email would be very difficult. ...
>
> Gee, it seems like just yesterday that I was saying e-postage is the 
> bad idea that just won't go away. 


This is an example of an especially consistent pattern, over the history 
of the Net, when talking about how to solve security-related issues:? 
good theory that ignores bad history and even worse design detail.

That is, an entirely reasonable and appealing idea which has either or 
both of far too little design detail to permit serious testing and 
deployment, or a history of failing technically or failing on usability 
or failing on market appeal, where market appeal often includes 
overcoming installed base momentum.

There were several efforts to create multi-media email.? All were done 
by thoughtful people.? Some, like X.400, even had massive governmental 
and industrial support.? All failed.? At least one quite spectacularly.

We finally got multi-media by creating an overlay that did not touch the 
infrastructure and only required support in the author's MUA and the 
recipients' MUAs.

The common refrain, to a long history of very poor uptake of a security 
mechanism, is a version of "We just have to try harder". I suggest that 
instead, a long history of missing a reasonable adoption goal should 
prompt rethinking the approach.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From lars at nocrew.org  Tue Feb 13 22:06:50 2024
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:06:50 +0000
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <a9809640-69b7-4f5a-8e9d-01db33463956@3kitty.org> (Jack Haverty
 via Internet-history's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:41:23 -0800")
References: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>
 <a9809640-69b7-4f5a-8e9d-01db33463956@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <7w7cj7inph.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Jack Haverty wrote:
> FYI, I was JFH at MIT-DM.

In the interest of internet history, isn't it the case that the official
ARPANET host name was MIT-DMS?  The Dynamic Modeling System.  Earlier it
was MIT-DMCG (e.g. RFC 475), Dynamic Modeling and Computer Graphics.
The computer was fitted with an Evans&Sutherland LDS-1 display system,
and a dozen or so fancy Imlac minicomputers working as vector graphics
terminals.

Internal to the operating system the machine name was DM, and all ITS
systems had two-letter names: there were also AI (Artificial
Intelligence), ML (Mathlab), and MC (Macsyma Consortium).


From dave.taht at gmail.com  Wed Feb 14 01:08:38 2024
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:08:38 -0500
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <7w7cj7inph.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
References: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>
 <a9809640-69b7-4f5a-8e9d-01db33463956@3kitty.org>
 <7w7cj7inph.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4UqHDf3gLL-u4EeL98vSrdvye8UvKXdRJBBdr5STMP7g@mail.gmail.com>

one of the biggest barriers to running a mail server at home was the
need for working reverse dns, which is generally only available via a
corporate subscription, and often not even then. Other updates to the
dns made dynamically became very difficult in the past two decades.

https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/annual/reports/2022_auditorreport.pdf

I was bemused to discover today in the above report, how much running
reverse dns cost out of their budget. 150k/yr.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:06?AM Lars Brinkhoff via Internet-history
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> Jack Haverty wrote:
> > FYI, I was JFH at MIT-DM.
>
> In the interest of internet history, isn't it the case that the official
> ARPANET host name was MIT-DMS?  The Dynamic Modeling System.  Earlier it
> was MIT-DMCG (e.g. RFC 475), Dynamic Modeling and Computer Graphics.
> The computer was fitted with an Evans&Sutherland LDS-1 display system,
> and a dozen or so fancy Imlac minicomputers working as vector graphics
> terminals.
>
> Internal to the operating system the machine name was DM, and all ITS
> systems had two-letter names: there were also AI (Artificial
> Intelligence), ML (Mathlab), and MC (Macsyma Consortium).
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



-- 
40 years of net history, a couple songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From york at isoc.org  Wed Feb 14 06:44:14 2024
From: york at isoc.org (Dan York)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:44:14 +0000
Subject: [ih] Converting the original 1990 WWW proposal from Word for
 Macintosh 4.0
Message-ID: <0C1434BA-CA77-4F3C-9039-820B91BC4C8C@isoc.org>

I read this story by John Graham-Cummings about his work to convert Tim Berners-Lee's original WWW proposal from Word for Macintosh 4.0 to something newer and thought some folks on this list might find it of interest:

https://blog.jgc.org/2024/02/the-original-www-proposal-is-word-for.html

Very interesting to see that LibreOffice had the best converter of apps available today, and also to see the value of emulation environments to be able to use older software.
And also just the constant challenge around document preservation.

Enjoy,
Dan
--
Dan York, Director, Internet Technology |  Internet Society
york at isoc.org | +1-603-439-0024 | https://mastodon.social/@danyork

[image001.png]
internetsociety.org<https://www.internetsociety.org/> | @internetsociety<https://twitter.com/internetsociety>



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed Feb 14 08:03:53 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:03:53 -0800
Subject: [ih] The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4UqHDf3gLL-u4EeL98vSrdvye8UvKXdRJBBdr5STMP7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240213201745.674908322B4D@ary.qy>
 <a9809640-69b7-4f5a-8e9d-01db33463956@3kitty.org>
 <7w7cj7inph.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
 <CAA93jw4UqHDf3gLL-u4EeL98vSrdvye8UvKXdRJBBdr5STMP7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d7ab58a1-8a66-490d-9a7c-ae5e82b2ea85@dcrocker.net>

On 2/14/2024 1:08 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history wrote:
> https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/annual/reports/2022_auditorreport.pdf
>
> I was bemused to discover today in the above report, how much running
> reverse dns cost out of their budget. 150k/yr.

Ummm...

                            Computer
                Personnel  Hardware and   Telecom and
                  Cost    Software Cost  Colocation Cost     Total
Reverse DNS   $ 145,000    $ 105,000      $ 150,000      $ 400,000



Reverse DNS has certainly become a requirement for domains used for 
abuse-affected services.? So, yeah. Required.

    */If there really is a significant barrier to obtaining or
    maintaining an entry, it would be worth an effort to make sure its
    availability is universal, cheap, easy, and reliable./*

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Wed Feb 14 08:37:59 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 14 Feb 2024 11:37:59 -0500
Subject: [ih] rDNS, was The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <d7ab58a1-8a66-490d-9a7c-ae5e82b2ea85@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20240214163759.B24058331DF2@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>Reverse DNS has certainly become a requirement for domains used for 
>abuse-affected services.? So, yeah. Required.
>
>    */If there really is a significant barrier to obtaining or
>    maintaining an entry, it would be worth an effort to make sure its
>    availability is universal, cheap, easy, and reliable./*

rDNS basically comes for free with a RIR IP allocation. What happens
after individual IPs are assigned to customers is highly variable.

These days it's hard to make an argument for running a mail server at
home, unless you have a rather unusual home. The external appearance
of a mail server is close enough to that of a botnet that most retail
ISPs deliberately block port 25 since that stops a lot of abuse.

You can get a perfectly good VPS for $5 or $10/mo with a static IP and
rDNS from many hosting providers. That's the reasonable approach now.

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed Feb 14 08:43:04 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:43:04 -0800
Subject: [ih] rDNS, was The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <20240214163759.B24058331DF2@ary.qy>
References: <20240214163759.B24058331DF2@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <95a8ea43-781d-4cdd-8c0d-a094ace9fd6f@dcrocker.net>

On 2/14/2024 8:37 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> You can get a perfectly good VPS for $5 or $10/mo with a static IP and
> rDNS from many hosting providers. That's the reasonable approach now.


That's the /available/ approach now.

However it is a markedly higher barrier than exists for getting a domain 
name.

As global Internet policies go, it serves to reduce individual 
opportunities for innovation, at the least.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From johnl at iecc.com  Wed Feb 14 09:05:47 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Date: 14 Feb 2024 12:05:47 -0500
Subject: [ih] rDNS, was The Decline and Fall of Internet Email?
In-Reply-To: <95a8ea43-781d-4cdd-8c0d-a094ace9fd6f@dcrocker.net>
References: <20240214163759.B24058331DF2@ary.qy>
 <95a8ea43-781d-4cdd-8c0d-a094ace9fd6f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <53b85e14-1ed0-e879-37fd-f14b7990b9aa@iecc.com>

> On 2/14/2024 8:37 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> You can get a perfectly good VPS for $5 or $10/mo with a static IP and
>> rDNS from many hosting providers. That's the reasonable approach now.
>
> That's the /available/ approach now.
>
> However it is a markedly higher barrier than exists for getting a domain 
> name.
>
> As global Internet policies go, it serves to reduce individual opportunities 
> for innovation, at the least.

I dunno, a domain name is maybe $15/yr, a VPS starts at $55/yr and you can 
do a lot more with a VPS than with a domain name.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Tue Feb 27 15:00:45 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:00:45 +1300
Subject: [ih] Interview [Was: Prehistory: NPL Scrapbook]
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UdYqttD3LWPpW9vyy-siZBJ84bCS=294D=yoZtsWc=RA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <07e23850-3774-8ed6-f1f2-fb8e3acb5037@gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UdYqttD3LWPpW9vyy-siZBJ84bCS=294D=yoZtsWc=RA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99aec028-7982-8b05-e592-683721ec6a8a@gmail.com>

Vint, et al,

I did an email interview with Peter Cashin - it was very interesting, and not just about an early hypertext project. I'll be meeting him in person tomorrow in Auckland.

The interview was published as a research report today:
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/research/groups/CDMTCS/researchreports/download.php?selected-id=884

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 06-Feb-24 13:48, vinton cerf wrote:
> yes, indeed, I do remember Peter Cashin.
> What a good idea to interview him!
> v
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:45?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     Back on topic, I hope. I've been contacted in the last few days by Peter Cashin, who is the only surviving developer of the Scrapbook project at NPL in 1970-74. This is not well known but was a (small) distributed information service including things very like hyperlinks, running over the pioneering NPL packet-switched network. Vint may remember Peter from INWG meetings.
> 
>     Peter is a New Zealander who now divides his time between NZ and Canada. Should I be doing an oral history style interview with him? He's in NZ for the next few weeks.
> 
>     Regards
>      ? ? Brian Carpenter
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>