ISP Information:
A BLOB is a data type used in a relational database that can contain any type of binary data, including sound, video, graphics, etc.
ISP Glossary:
BLOB - On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:27:57 CDT, wrote: That would really depend on who Habeas litagates against. If they also try to sue any other waterbase-type system out of business, I would not view that as a positive thing. That's a different discussion.No, it's not. The OP asked for "experience with or comments on" theHabeas system; it's perfectly legitimate to talk about such things inthis discussion. Now, it may not be something that you're *willing* todiscuss, but that's completely different from attempting to claim suchissues are somehow out of bounds in the discussion.If Habeas positions itself as one of many watermark-based systems, Ihave no objection to its existence. If it tries to litigate any otherwatermark-based systems out of existence, I have a huge problem withthat. The marketplace should decide which systems are legitimate. Notthe lawyers. The fact remains that they need to be litigious to protect the trust of their mark when used by spammers to circumvent spam filters.I have no disagreement with this. All of the watermark-based systemsmust vigorously protect against forgeries. That's what makes the whole deal with the CEO's getting ousted look fishy. Look at Tom Betz's post on this topic. If Habeas is going to let spammers use their mark, then it makes the entire system worthless. If not, Habeas needs to explain to the world exactly why they removed their CEO from the company. Exactly what was the difference in philosophy that led to her ouster? Since I can't see into the futureIt has nothing to do with the future; it has to do with current eventsof the company. Habeas needs to clearly spell out exactly what thedifference of opinion was with their founding CEO which led to herouster in August of 2003. I've seen no evidence that they're allowing spammer to use their syetem; in fact, they've sued several of them, and have broken agreements with companies that began spamming.You failed to respond to the question I asked in my previous posting.Habeas removed its CEO -- one of the lawyers who was most respected inthe spam-fighting community for her efforts with the MAPS. Unless theythoroughly and satisfactorily explain that action, they will losegoodwill in the community. It does require that recepients use the watermark as a whitelist. Do you think there is a criticality of users who honor it that way? At least at this point in time, there definitely is not. Different discussion again.Different than what? It's entire appropriate to the topic beingdiscussed here. The primary point is that it does *not* require a criticality of users on the internet using it to make it worthwhile.It has to do with the value proposition of the system.What do you mean by "worthwhile"? Is it "worthwhile" at this instant?To whom? How are you measuring such worthiness?Clearly, you have thought about such systems extensively. What is yourrelationship to Habeas and/or to the industry? Each user receiving it can make their own choices on how to accept it. Some many choose to completely ignore it, but that doesn't affect it's usefulness for others.See my earlier comments. I have no objection to watermark-basedsystems in general. I have a huge issue with a startup that tries tolitigate itself into a position of having a monopoly onwatermark-based systems. Will Habeas allow other watermark vendors to be in the marketplace? Or will they also attempt to sue them. IMO, that's just as important a question. The answer to that question does not affect how effective Habeas will be, although you may find it an interesting discussion if they go in that direction.Just like I'd like Habeas to be forthcoming about why their CEO wasousted, I'd like them to be forthcoming about this issue.Clearly, Habeas -- and, apparently, you -- view watermark systems as aviable means for a significant percentage of "legitimate" e-mail toget around SPAM filters at some point in the future. Does Habeasintend to sue anyone else who has such systems -- do they want to taxeverybody who intends to use
|
