IETF DKIM (date)
August 31, 2006
- RE: [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt] comments first glance, Bill.Oxley, 18:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt], Hector Santos, 16:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt], Dave Crocker, 13:32
- [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt], Jim Fenton, 13:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, william(at)elan.net, 11:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Stephen Farrell, 11:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, william(at)elan.net, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Stephen Farrell, 11:02
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Bill.Oxley, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hector Santos, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Wietse Venema, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hector Santos, 11:02
August 30, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Steve Atkins, 20:58
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Scott Kitterman, 20:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John Levine, 20:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:10
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:00
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Arvel Hathcock, 19:30
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Arvel Hathcock, 17:56
- [ietf-dkim] base state (was: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains), Frank Ellermann, 16:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Wietse Venema, 16:01
- [ietf-dkim] Re: What community problem is the WG solving?, Frank Ellermann, 15:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, J.D. Falk, 15:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, J.D. Falk, 14:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Scott Kitterman, 13:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, william(at)elan.net, 13:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Dave Crocker, 13:29
- [ietf-dkim] What community problem is the WG solving?, Dave Crocker, 13:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John Levine, 12:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Scott Kitterman, 09:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation, Hector Santos, 08:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hector Santos, 07:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John Levine, 07:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Wietse Venema, 07:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hector Santos, 06:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Scott Kitterman, 04:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Scott Kitterman, 04:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Stephen Farrell, 01:59
August 29, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 20:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, william(at)elan.net, 18:56
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John L, 17:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Steve Atkins, 17:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Stephen Farrell, 17:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hector Santos, 17:07
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, Stephen Farrell, 16:48
- Re: BUSTED - RE: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation, Wietse Venema, 16:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, J.D. Falk, 16:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Michael Thomas, 15:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Michael Thomas, 15:49
- [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John L, 15:28
- [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life, John L, 15:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, John Levine, 15:17
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hector Santos, 13:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hector Santos, 13:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Jim Fenton, 13:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:45
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Damon, 11:34
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:15
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, Hector Santos, 10:17
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, Bill.Oxley, 09:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, John Levine, 09:37
- [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:06
- [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00, Hector Santos, 09:02
- [ietf-dkim] Requirement #10 - List of possible hashing methods, Hector Santos, 08:52
- BUSTED - RE: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:32
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation, Eric Allman, 07:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Stephen Farrell, 02:18
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 01:00
August 28, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 23:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation, Hector Santos, 21:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Stephen Farrell, 15:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Wietse Venema, 14:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Eric Allman, 14:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Eric Allman, 14:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Michael Thomas, 14:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Scott Kitterman, 14:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Scott Kitterman, 14:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Michael Thomas, 14:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Stephen Farrell, 14:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Jim Fenton, 13:58
- [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation, Scott Kitterman, 13:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Dave Crocker, 12:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Dave Crocker, 12:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*, Hector Santos, 11:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Hector Santos, 10:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*, Damon, 10:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*, Damon, 10:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Michael Thomas, 09:57
- [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*, Michael Thomas, 09:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Michael Thomas, 09:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Stephen Farrell, 08:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Damon, 08:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Stephen Farrell, 08:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Michael Thomas, 07:49
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Stephen Farrell, 07:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Damon, 07:21
- [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope, Hector Santos, 06:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 04:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 04:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Stephen Farrell, 04:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Stephen Farrell, 04:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concernswith DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 04:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Hector Santos, 03:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 03:16
August 27, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Wietse Venema, 18:46
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 15:44
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibilityconcerns withDesignatedSigningDomains, Bill.Oxley, 15:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains, Dave Crocker, 13:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains, Wietse Venema, 12:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 11:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Dave Crocker, 10:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Wietse Venema, 10:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Hector Santos, 09:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, John Levine, 08:44
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 07:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Damon, 05:38
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 05:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Damon, 03:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery, Damon, 02:53
August 26, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 23:41
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Frank Ellermann, 23:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains, Hector Santos, 21:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Wietse Venema, 20:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Wietse Venema, 19:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains, Hector Santos, 19:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Direct vs. Indirect specification of the accountabledomain, Hector Santos, 11:48
- [ietf-dkim] Direct vs. Indirect specification of the accountable domain, Dave Crocker, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Michael Thomas, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Michael Thomas, 09:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains, Michael Thomas, 09:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, william(at)elan.net, 08:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, william(at)elan.net, 08:33
- [ietf-dkim] Re: T-Shirt Entries, Frank Ellermann, 06:45
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Frank Ellermann, 06:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery, Hector Santos, 06:01
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Bill.Oxley, 05:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Hector Santos, 03:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery, Thomas A. Fine, 00:25
August 25, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery, Jim Fenton, 22:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Scott Kitterman, 22:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 22:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 22:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 22:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 21:58
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains, Bill.Oxley, 20:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, J.D. Falk, 18:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Bill.Oxley, 18:28
- [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery, Thomas A. Fine, 17:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Stephen Farrell, 17:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 17:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Stephen Farrell, 16:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 16:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Scott Kitterman, 16:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Scott Kitterman, 15:17
- [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 15:07
- [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains, Jim Fenton, 14:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Bill.Oxley, 12:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, John Levine, 12:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 10:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 10:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries, Tony Hansen, 09:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries, Hector Santos, 08:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries, Damon, 08:04
- [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries, Scott Kitterman, 07:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 07:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 05:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 04:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 04:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 04:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 03:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 03:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Hector Santos, 00:49
August 24, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication, Jon Callas, 22:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 19:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 18:07
- [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM, privacy, and user authentication, Frank Ellermann, 15:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication, Dave Crocker, 15:26
- [ietf-dkim] Tshirt requests, Bill.Oxley, 15:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Dave Crocker, 15:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 14:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Hector Santos, 14:30
- [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.1 Last Paragraph., Damon, 14:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Jon Callas, 14:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, J.D. Falk, 13:54
- [ietf-dkim] Policy Lookup for Non-Signed Mail, Hector Santos, 13:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 13:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 13:12
- {Blocked Content} [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-05.txt, Internet-Drafts, 13:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Jon Callas, 12:34
- [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication, Jon Callas, 12:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision, Damon, 12:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 11:59
- [ietf-dkim] Default SSP Policy Lookup Method, Hector Santos, 11:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision, Hector Santos, 11:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 11:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Michael Thomas, 11:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 11:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Jon Callas, 11:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Jon Callas, 11:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:11
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision, Bill.Oxley, 11:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 11:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 10:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 10:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 10:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Michael Thomas, 10:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 10:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Stephen Farrell, 10:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 09:29
- [ietf-dkim] Re: 822/2822 or just 2822, Frank Ellermann, 09:21
- RE: [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822, Bill.Oxley, 09:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 09:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Damon, 09:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Wietse Venema, 09:06
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Frank Ellermann, 09:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Michael Thomas, 09:05
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Frank Ellermann, 00:10
August 23, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 21:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 21:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, John Levine, 20:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 20:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 19:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822, Dave Crocker, 18:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 18:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 18:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 16:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:41
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Where to look for the signing practice, Hector Santos, 12:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Jim Fenton, 12:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 12:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 12:28
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Where to look for the signing practice, Scott Kitterman, 12:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 11:50
- [ietf-dkim] Where to look for the signing practice, Jim Fenton, 11:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Jon Callas, 11:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 10:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 08:15
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 05:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 05:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Stephen Farrell, 03:04
August 22, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Graham Murray, 23:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Scott Kitterman, 22:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 18:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 18:45
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Bill.Oxley, 17:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 17:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 17:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 17:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, J.D. Falk, 16:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 16:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 16:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Scott Kitterman, 13:36
- [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Jon Callas, 10:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Damon, 07:54
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Question regarding computing message hashes, Frank Ellermann, 07:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Hector Santos, 04:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 02:06
August 21, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Dave Crocker, 19:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Wietse Venema, 19:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Dave Crocker, 17:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, J.D. Falk, 17:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Damon, 16:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Michael Thomas, 16:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 16:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Damon, 16:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 15:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 15:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Scott Kitterman, 14:53
- [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation, Dave Crocker, 14:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:27
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 11:02
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Bill.Oxley, 10:20
- [ietf-dkim] SSP backward compatibility, Hector Santos, 10:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Hector Santos, 09:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 08:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes, Dave Crocker, 08:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Paul Hoffman, 08:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes, Paul Hoffman, 08:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 07:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 05:16
- [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes, Roman Meisl, 02:31
August 19, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 16:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Michael Thomas, 16:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 15:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 06:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 01:06
August 18, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Hector Santos, 22:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 17:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 17:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 15:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 15:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Hector Santos, 15:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Jim Fenton, 14:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Paul Hoffman, 13:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Hector Santos, 12:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 12:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of 2822.From policy, Hector Santos, 12:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 12:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 12:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Paul Hoffman, 12:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 11:58
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of 2822.From policy, Damon, 11:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 11:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 11:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 11:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 11:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 11:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 11:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Michael Thomas, 11:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 10:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 10:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 10:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 10:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 09:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 08:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 07:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 07:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Scott Kitterman, 06:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Hector Santos, 03:38
August 17, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Frank Ellermann, 23:53
- [ietf-dkim] Responsible SSP usage, Hector Santos, 22:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Hector Santos, 19:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision, Hector Santos, 17:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 17:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 16:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 16:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Damon, 15:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Wietse Venema, 15:18
- [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision, Dave Crocker, 14:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Michael Thomas, 11:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Michael Thomas, 11:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 11:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 11:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Scott Kitterman, 09:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Bill.Oxley, 08:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Scott Kitterman, 08:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Michael Thomas, 08:39
August 16, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Scott Kitterman, 18:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Hector Santos, 18:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Scott Kitterman, 17:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Michael Thomas, 17:46
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Bill.Oxley, 17:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Hector Santos, 17:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Scott Kitterman, 16:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 16:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 16:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 16:04
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Bill.Oxley, 15:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Bill.Oxley, 15:01
- [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns, Jim Fenton, 14:09
August 11, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] See ya in a week-ish..., Stephen Farrell, 16:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalidsignatures., Wietse Venema, 13:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing, Hector Santos, 11:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalidsignatures., Hector Santos, 09:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalid signatures., Hector Santos, 08:12
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalid signatures., Bill.Oxley, 06:59
- [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing, Stefan Görling, 06:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures., Wietse Venema, 06:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Hector Santos, 02:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell, 01:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures., Stephen Farrell, 01:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Stephen Farrell, 01:30
August 10, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Hector Santos, 19:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures., Hector Santos, 19:27
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 14:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Bill.Oxley, 13:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:07
- {Blocked Content} [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Michael Thomas, 12:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Jon Callas, 12:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, william(at)elan.net, 11:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell, 10:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Hector Santos, 09:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 09:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 09:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Damon, 09:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Steve Atkins, 08:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 08:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Stephen Farrell, 08:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Scott Kitterman, 08:32
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 08:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Damon, 08:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Scott Kitterman, 07:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Michael Thomas, 07:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Scott Kitterman, 07:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Michael Thomas, 07:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Michael Thomas, 07:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 07:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Michael Thomas, 07:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Stephen Farrell, 07:21
- [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Dave Crocker, 07:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 07:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Stephen Farrell, 07:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, william(at)elan.net, 07:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Michael Thomas, 06:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, william(at)elan.net, 06:54
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 06:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Scott Kitterman, 06:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Stephen Farrell, 05:29
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 05:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 04:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Stephen Farrell, 04:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 04:15
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 03:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 03:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, william(at)elan.net, 01:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, william(at)elan.net, 01:34
August 09, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Mark Delany, 20:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Hector Santos, 20:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Dave Crocker, 20:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Scott Kitterman, 20:02
- Identity selection related requirements (Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender), william(at)elan.net, 20:02
- [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures., Hector Santos, 19:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Tony Hansen, 19:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 19:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Hector Santos, 18:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 17:58
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 17:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Hector Santos, 17:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Stephen Farrell, 17:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods..., Stephen Farrell, 16:55
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Frank Ellermann, 16:45
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Frank Ellermann, 16:22
- [ietf-dkim] Re: requirements clarifications: Listed third parties treated like first party and must not require/specify, Frank Ellermann, 15:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell, 14:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Scott Kitterman, 14:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Michael Thomas, 14:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Michael Thomas, 13:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Michael Thomas, 13:49
- [ietf-dkim] How much bogosity on the part of filter writers to cope with?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:11
- [ietf-dkim] 2822.From or 2822.Sender and 2822.From was:Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 12:22
- [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Michael Thomas, 12:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Hector Santos, 12:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods..., Hector Santos, 11:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder, Tony Hansen, 11:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Tony Hansen, 11:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Tony Hansen, 11:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Michael Thomas, 11:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Paul Hoffman, 11:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder, Michael Thomas, 11:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirement clarification: NS delegation, Michael Thomas, 11:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Michael Thomas, 11:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Damon, 10:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Scott Kitterman, 10:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Damon, 10:33
- [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Scott Kitterman, 10:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available, Scott Kitterman, 10:29
- [ietf-dkim] requirements clarifications: Listed third parties treated like first party and must not require/specify, Scott Kitterman, 10:26
- [ietf-dkim] Please disregard - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Scott Kitterman, 10:21
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures, Scott Kitterman, 10:19
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder, Scott Kitterman, 10:14
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision, Scott Kitterman, 10:14
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: DNS Exchange determinism, Scott Kitterman, 10:13
- [ietf-dkim] Requirement clarification: NS delegation, Scott Kitterman, 10:10
- [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6, Damon, 10:07
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Scott Kitterman, 10:04
- [ietf-dkim] Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, Scott Kitterman, 10:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8, Hector Santos, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8, Damon, 09:08
- [ietf-dkim] Issue: 5.3, req#2 additional note..., Stephen Farrell, 09:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8, Stephen Farrell, 08:49
- [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8, Damon, 07:58
- [ietf-dkim] Final Montreal minutes..., Stephen Farrell, 01:39
August 08, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Hector Santos, 21:32
- [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods..., Hector Santos, 18:43
- [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirement #9 - Protocol must not be required to be invoked ..., Hector Santos, 18:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available, Hector Santos, 17:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 15:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Stephen Farrell, 15:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Stephen Farrell, 14:59
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Frank Ellermann, 14:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 14:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 13:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 13:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 13:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements //definitions to support list concept, stephen . farrell, 13:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, stephen . farrell, 13:07
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Frank Ellermann, 12:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, william(at)elan.net, 12:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 12:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 12:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, J.D. Falk, 12:37
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Frank Ellermann, 12:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 11:54
- RE: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available, Bill.Oxley, 11:45
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, J.D. Falk, 11:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 11:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available, Stephen Farrell, 10:59
- [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA, Scott Kitterman, 10:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Bill.Oxley, 10:26
- [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available, Michael Thomas, 10:19
- [ietf-dkim] Audience for SSP requirements, Dave Crocker, 10:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Dave Crocker, 09:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Stephen Farrell, 09:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Dave Crocker, 09:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Stephen Farrell, 09:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?, Stephen Farrell, 09:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Stephen Farrell, 09:07
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:02
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:57
- [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Frank Ellermann, 08:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 08:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Stephen Farrell, 08:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Stephen Farrell, 08:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 08:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?, Stephen Farrell, 08:07
- [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?, Frank Ellermann, 07:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Jeff Macdonald, 07:39
- [ietf-dkim] Real Numbers, Damon, 06:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 02:09
- [ietf-dkim] SSP is about obtaining 0% False Positives, Hector Santos, 01:27
August 07, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Dave Crocker, 18:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Bill.Oxley, 17:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Jeff Macdonald, 17:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] remote access, Hector Santos, 16:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Bill.Oxley, 15:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives, Hector Santos, 14:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 13:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 12:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hector Santos, 12:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Michael Thomas, 12:15
- [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives, Dave Crocker, 12:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] remote access, Scott Kitterman, 11:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Steve Atkins, 11:50
- [ietf-dkim] remote access, Dave Crocker, 11:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Dave Crocker, 11:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 11:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 11:03
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Arvel Hathcock, 10:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Steve Atkins, 10:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 10:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Arvel Hathcock, 10:45
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Bill.Oxley, 10:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?, Scott Kitterman, 10:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Damon, 10:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hector Santos, 10:06
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:04
- RE: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:50
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Damon, 09:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Dave Crocker, 09:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Michael Thomas, 07:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Michael Thomas, 07:47
- [ietf-dkim] Invalid rhetorical moves, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 07:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Damon, 07:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Damon, 07:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Damon, 06:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?, Wietse Venema, 06:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hector Santos, 06:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Stephen Farrell, 04:31
- [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?, Hector Santos, 00:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Mark Delany, 00:09
August 06, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, william(at)elan.net, 23:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hector Santos, 23:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Michael Thomas, 22:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Hector Santos, 22:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Scott Kitterman, 22:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Michael Thomas, 22:16
- [ietf-dkim] SSP: The WalMart Analogy, Hector Santos, 22:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Dave Crocker, 21:56
- [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?, Mark Delany, 21:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 20:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, william(at)elan.net, 16:43
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 16:40
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 16:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Dave Crocker, 14:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Arvel Hathcock, 13:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Arvel Hathcock, 13:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 08:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 08:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Scott Kitterman, 08:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Scott Kitterman, 08:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 07:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 07:21
- [ietf-dkim] SSP discussion..., Stephen Farrell, 06:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 06:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Mark Delany, 05:49
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Scott Kitterman, 05:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 05:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 04:48
- [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Frank Ellermann, 04:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Stephen Farrell, 04:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Stephen Farrell, 03:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] List based policy, Hector Santos, 02:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization, Hector Santos, 01:51
August 05, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 22:07
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 21:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 21:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 21:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 20:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Dave Crocker, 19:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Dave Crocker, 19:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Mark Delany, 19:08
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, william(at)elan.net, 19:04
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, John L, 18:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Mark Delany, 18:38
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, Bill.Oxley, 18:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Dave Crocker, 18:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 18:10
- [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy, John L, 18:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Mark Delany, 17:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Michael Thomas, 17:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, william(at)elan.net, 17:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Steve Atkins, 17:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Dave Crocker, 17:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 16:57
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 16:49
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 16:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, John L, 16:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, John Levine, 16:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 16:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, John L, 15:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Hector Santos, 13:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Michael Thomas, 13:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 12:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Arvel Hathcock, 07:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization, Arvel Hathcock, 07:45
August 04, 2006
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Bill.Oxley, 22:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, John L, 22:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Mark Delany, 22:25
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Bill.Oxley, 22:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Mark Delany, 21:52
- [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization, Dave Crocker, 21:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, Bill.Oxley, 21:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements, John Levine, 20:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John Levine, 20:43
- RE: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Bill.Oxley, 20:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Mark Delany, 20:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 20:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 19:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Mark Delany, 19:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 19:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Bill.Oxley, 19:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 19:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 18:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Mark Delany, 18:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 18:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 18:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 18:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 17:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, william(at)elan.net, 17:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 17:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 17:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 17:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 17:20
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 17:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 16:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Hector Santos, 16:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 16:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Damon, 16:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Mark Delany, 16:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 16:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 16:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 16:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 16:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, william(at)elan.net, 15:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 15:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 15:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Bill.Oxley, 15:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 15:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 15:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, william(at)elan.net, 15:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 15:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 15:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 15:13
- [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy, Michael Thomas, 15:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 15:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 15:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 14:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 14:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 14:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 14:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 14:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 14:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, william(at)elan.net, 14:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 14:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, wayne, 14:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 13:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 13:21
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:58
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 12:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment, John L, 12:47
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:46
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment, Bill.Oxley, 12:29
- [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment, John L, 12:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 12:04
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 11:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 11:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 11:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John Levine, 10:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 10:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 10:33
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Paul Hoffman, 10:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 10:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 10:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Steve Atkins, 10:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 10:20
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 10:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 10:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 10:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Paul Hoffman, 10:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hector Santos, 10:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Stephen Farrell, 09:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Steve Atkins, 09:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Damon, 09:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 09:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 09:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 09:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Paul Hoffman, 09:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 09:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Stephen Farrell, 09:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 09:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 09:09
- RE: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 08:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 08:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, John L, 08:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 08:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Stephen Farrell, 08:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Michael Thomas, 08:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Michael Thomas, 08:01
- RE: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hector Santos, 07:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Stephen Farrell, 07:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Stephen Farrell, 06:54
- [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Hector Santos, 06:38
- RE: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Jeff Macdonald, 05:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Hector Santos, 05:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviability of DKIM-BASE, Hector Santos, 04:56
- [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?, Stephen Farrell, 04:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviabiility of DKIM-BASE, Stephen Farrell, 04:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 02:43
- [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviabiility of DKIM-BASE, Hector Santos, 02:04
August 03, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, John Levine, 14:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 12:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization, Eric Allman, 12:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 12:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Michael Thomas, 09:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Damon, 09:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Mark Delany, 09:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Stephen Farrell, 08:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Mark Delany, 08:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Dave Crocker, 08:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Michael Thomas, 08:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, John Levine, 08:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Mark Delany, 07:40
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:17
- [ietf-dkim] RE: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:06
- [ietf-dkim] SSP - Sender Signing Policy archived discussions, Hector Santos, 03:13
August 02, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Dave Crocker, 21:33
- [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?, Mark Delany, 20:59
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Bill.Oxley, 20:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 20:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 20:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 20:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 19:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Stephen Farrell, 16:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Damon, 16:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Stephen Farrell, 15:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Dave Crocker, 15:56
- [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Stephen Farrell, 15:49
- [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Paul Hoffman, 14:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Damon, 14:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 14:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 14:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Hector Santos, 13:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Michael Thomas, 13:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 12:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 12:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, Damon, 12:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 12:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 12:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, william(at)elan.net, 12:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 12:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, Damon, 12:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 12:35
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 12:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 12:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Paul Hoffman, 12:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Bill.Oxley, 11:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 11:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 11:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 11:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, william(at)elan.net, 11:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, Damon, 11:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 11:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Stephen Farrell, 11:35
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:33
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Arvel Hathcock, 11:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Stephen Farrell, 11:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Michael Thomas, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Stephen Farrell, 10:32
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 10:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions..., Tony Hansen, 10:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 09:52
- [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions..., Stephen Farrell, 09:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Scott Kitterman, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, wayne, 09:26
- [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?, Damon, 08:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Michael Thomas, 08:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, John L, 08:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 07:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, wayne, 06:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 06:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 05:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Stephen Farrell, 04:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 04:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Stephen Farrell, 04:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice, Stephen Farrell, 04:16
- [ietf-dkim] Back to basics with requirements, Patrick Peterson, 00:29
August 01, 2006
- RE: [ietf-dkim] requirements, Patrick Peterson, 23:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, Dave Crocker, 22:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Scott Kitterman, 21:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail, Scott Kitterman, 21:55
- [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom, John L, 21:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 21:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, John Levine, 20:40
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Bill.Oxley, 20:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 19:53
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Bill.Oxley, 19:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice, Hector Santos, 18:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Hector Santos, 18:10
- [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice, Michael Thomas, 17:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail, Michael Thomas, 17:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Stephen Farrell, 15:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Michael Thomas, 15:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Scott Kitterman, 14:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 14:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 12:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Stephen Farrell, 12:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Dave Crocker, 12:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Arvel Hathcock, 11:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Hector Santos, 11:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Arvel Hathcock, 11:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing, Michael Thomas, 11:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing, Michael Thomas, 11:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 11:12
- RE: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest ProtectionPossible, Bill.Oxley, 11:11
- [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Hector Santos, 10:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible, Stephen Farrell, 10:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 10:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 10:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 10:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Michael Thomas, 10:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 10:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 10:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Michael Thomas, 10:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Hector Santos, 10:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Stephen Farrell, 09:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, John Levine, 09:50
- [ietf-dkim] New Requirement: SSP must|should support DKIM-BASE semantics, Hector Santos, 09:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Arvel Hathcock, 09:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Arvel Hathcock, 09:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, John Levine, 09:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Michael Thomas, 08:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Dave Crocker, 08:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Dave Crocker, 08:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Michael Thomas, 08:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Scott Kitterman, 08:35
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Bill.Oxley, 08:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Michael Thomas, 08:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 08:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Damon, 08:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Michael Thomas, 08:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?, Michael Thomas, 07:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Michael Thomas, 07:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 07:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 07:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, John Levine, 07:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, John Levine, 07:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 06:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 05:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 04:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Stephen Farrell, 02:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms, Scott Kitterman, 00:48