Yes and no. If there are patents involved, McAfee can excercise them to
stop entirely the distribution of anything but their proprietary
internal code.
Ross Vandegrift wrote:
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:36:57AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this acquisition as a sellout. Plain and si
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 the voices made Malte S. Stretz write:
MSS> On Tuesday 07 January 2003 20:16 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
MSS> >[...]
MSS> > What NetAss can do, via their employees running this project, is to
MSS> > change the license somewhat... which won't hurt anyone today, next week
MSS> >
Does the aquisition of Deersoft by NAI mean that the key developers can
no longer contribute code to the open source project? Will they be
allowed to work on the open source code in work hours or will they just
work on the proprietary code? Does their employment at NAI restrict
them from coding in
> "MSS" == Malte S Stretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> of the "what if 50% of all those uses of free versions actually paid us
>> instead"-kind; and suddenly they're using their slightly changed license,
>> or bruteforce lawyerpower, to make it damn hard to use SA.
MSS> I trust Justin and C
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 20:16 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>[...]
> What NetAss can do, via their employees running this project, is to
> change the license somewhat... which won't hurt anyone today, next week
> or even 3 months from now... but then someone at NetAss starts doing math
> of the
Keep this in mindthere was a commercial and an open source version of
this product/service. According to what's been written, here, the open
source product will live on as an open source project.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > And yes, it's 3 developers lost. Shame.
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rose, Bobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example: if the open-source
> project comes up with or adds some new algorithm of detection does that
> automatically become NAI property which ends up in their commercial
> product (like bayes in 2.50)!?
Note that the
- Original Message -
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SATalk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Deersoft acquisition (thumbs down)
- Original Message -
From: <
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 the voices made Theo Van Dinter write:
TVD> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
TVD> > continues. Nobody can buy an open source project and make it closed source
TVD> > without _all_ it's contributors agreeing on a license change. I for my own
TVD> >
Put the tears on hold. Put the knee-jerk in neutral. Put the soap boxes
away. Lay your weapons on the ground and step away slowly.
Nobody knows how this is going to shake out yet. It could be days, weeks,
or longer until the ramifications, if any, are fully known. Matt could be
back tomorrow.
* Diffenderfer, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-06 21:32-0500]
> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
> will be named...
>
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
> thesaurus out fo
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SATalk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Deersoft acquisition (thumbs down)
> I apologize for my rant being so long, and if I am wrong in my
> assessments (and
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> continues. Nobody can buy an open source project and make it closed source
> without _all_ it's contributors agreeing on a license change. I for my own
> won't.
And the license change only effects new code. You can't relicense a
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:36:57AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see this acquisition as a sellout. Plain and simple. And this comes from a
> guy who has seen his fair share of business deals, and been approached
> to "sell out" as well. Why do I say this? Because Mcaffee does not embrace
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 16:46 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:12:50AM -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote:
> > Everyone seems more interested in the SA name than the project. Is SA
> > still a completely open-source project now or does NAI have
> > restrictions or plan on introduci
On 2003-01-07 10:12:50 -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote:
> or plan on introducing restrictions. For example: if the open-source
> project comes up with or adds some new algorithm of detection does that
> automatically become NAI property which ends up in their commercial
> product (like bayes in 2.50)!?
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 16:36 CET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[...]
> Back on track, is there any talk of branching off this project into
> another open source project with a different name, and continuing the
> open source building? I have seen this done many times, such as Neomail
> to Open Webm
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:12:50AM -0500, Rose, Bobby wrote:
> Everyone seems more interested in the SA name than the project. Is SA
> still a completely open-source project now or does NAI have restrictions
> or plan on introducing restrictions. For example: if the open-source
> project comes up
> > And yes, it's 3 developers lost. Shame.
>
> Shame indeed but that's way it's gotta be, I suppose.
Note: The following is a personal rant and is not indicative of any
organization's or other people's opinions, nor is it from my right frame of
mind :)
[BEGIN RANT]
I cannot disagree more with
on
Cc: Matt Sergeant; SATalk
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Deersoft acquisition
Lars Hansson said:
> > And yes, it's 3 developers lost. Shame.
>
> Shame indeed but that's way it's gotta be, I suppose.
By no means -- bear in mind I've been working for Deersoft for ~4 mo
Lars Hansson said:
> > And yes, it's 3 developers lost. Shame.
>
> Shame indeed but that's way it's gotta be, I suppose.
By no means -- bear in mind I've been working for Deersoft for ~4 months
now, and Craig for longer. Open source SpamAssassin is an incredibly
important part of the whole thin
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 20:40, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> They sell a service too. McAffee.com. In fact they even stole the idea
> off us (but that's another story ;-)
They do? Hmm..didnt know that. Then again,it's not like I browse their
site every, uh, year.
Can't say I'm surprised they stole the idea
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 11:44, Lars Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:16, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > Of course the downside is we probably lose two good developers, as the
> > FAQ states that Justin and Craig will spend their time working on the
> > proprietary side of things. Does that mean
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:16, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Of course the downside is we probably lose two good developers, as the
> FAQ states that Justin and Craig will spend their time working on the
> proprietary side of things. Does that mean the NAI version is a fork of
> the open source version? Pr
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 06:09, Jeff Morton wrote:
> Which brings me to a question... what exactly did they purchase? If
> they purchased Deersoft, does that give them the right to enforce the
> trademark and prevent the open source Unix style SpamAssassin product
> from using that name? Do they
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 04:35, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:18:44PM -0500, Interservers Administration wrote:
> > McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
> Yeah, but "killer" makes me think of some guy named bubba with a
> baseball bat. "assassin" is much more sexy. Like using it
Which brings me to a question... what exactly did they purchase? If
they purchased Deersoft, does that give them the right to enforce the
trademark and prevent the open source Unix style SpamAssassin product
from using that name? Do they hold patents that could shut down the
open source SA pr
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:32, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
> thesaurus out for that one! :-)
And boy, SA is just a blacklist and their product will "add applications
that detect spammers even before they appear on black l
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:32, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
It even has the mandatory "Enterprise" so they can hike the price way,
way up there ;)
Argh, now my head hurts from all the empty phrases and buzzwords.
--
Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Duncan Findlay write:
DF> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:32:57PM -0500, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
DF> > Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DF> > will be named...
DF> >
DF> > McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DF> >
DF> > And they
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:18:44PM -0500, Interservers Administration wrote:
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
Yeah, but "killer" makes me think of some guy named bubba with a
baseball bat. "assassin" is much more sexy. Like using it makes you
involved in some stealthy life of intrigue.
Speak
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 the voices made Diffenderfer, Randy write:
DR> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
DR> will be named...
DR>
DR> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
DR>
DR> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
DR> thesaur
PROTECTED]'
Subject: [SAtalk] Deersoft acquisition
Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in
Q2)
will be named...
McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to
get
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 09:32:57PM -0500, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote:
> Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
> will be named...
>
> McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
>
> And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
> thesaurus out
Did anyone see in the NAI announcement that its first product (due in Q2)
will be named...
McAfee SpamKiller(TM) Enterprise
And they had the "nerve" to trademark that! :-))) Don't even have to get my
thesaurus out for that one! :-)
---
This s
I guess you missed the FAQ page which talks about how we're
building an enterprise version which integrates to Exchange
Server :)
Probably about a month or so till we're into serious testing
with our beta accounts; could be a bit longer till general
availability.
C
On Thursday, July 18, 200
Actually I did it...
Unfortunatly I stoped doing it real quick.
You need to have perl installed and working then install sa through that, have
your mta call perl which calls sa etc... It took up 100% cpu cycles until the
message was processed, usually 10-20 seconds for a small message. I've added
I was all exited about this until I noticed it was just for Outlook. I was
hoping for SA that would run on a Windows SMTP server...
Todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Craig R.Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:16 PM
To: SpamAssassin ML
Sub
On Friday 14 June 2002 06:45 pm, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Some quick answers (then I'm going home to sleep)
Sleep. Sleep is good. ;-)
> The Outlook contacts import-to-whitelist feature is almost certainly
> going to make it into 1.0, as will some toolbar buttons for
> "Spam/Not Spam" which user
Dial-a-FAQ by Matt Cline :)
Some quick answers (then I'm going home to sleep)
Matthew Cline wrote:
MC> I'm an editor at the Open Directory Project, so I'll submit the DeerSoft URL
MC> to the appropriate category. To do that, I need to know if SpamAssasin Pro
MC> is shareware or just normal pr
I'm an editor at the Open Directory Project, so I'll submit the DeerSoft URL
to the appropriate category. To do that, I need to know if SpamAssasin Pro
is shareware or just normal proprietary software.
Also, there's a bunch of sites under
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Abuse/Spam/ that sh
Press Release
SOURCE: Deersoft, Inc.
Deersoft Emerges to Combat Spam
PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 12, 2002--Spam, unwanted and offensive
email, is an overwhelming problem that many see getting worse every day. Spam
not only wastes individuals' valuable time and attention every time t
42 matches
Mail list logo
