IETF Mailsig (date)
October 31, 2004
- Re: mailing list software, was What does the mailsig mechanism mean?, John Levine, 21:20
- Re: the header argument again, was What does the mailsig mechanism mean?, John Levine, 21:07
- Re: third parties (was RE: simplicity, focus and adoption; what probl em are we trying to solve?), Tony Finch, 15:37
- Re: What does the mailsig mechanism mean?, David Woodhouse, 14:32
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), Jim Fenton, 12:37
October 29, 2004
- MASS will not be meeting in Washington, Steve Bellovin, 12:13
- third parties (was RE: simplicity, focus and adoption; what probl em are we trying to solve?), Peterson, Jon, 12:07
- What does the mailsig mechanism mean?, Robert Barclay, 11:54
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Michael Thomas, 11:54
- FW: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Robert Barclay, 11:53
- mass no mass?, Andrew Newton, 11:13
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Andrew Newton, 05:39
- RE: mailing lists (was - simplicity, focus and adoption; what pro blem are we trying to solve?), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 00:08
October 28, 2004
- Re: mailing lists (was - simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?), domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 22:58
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Jim Fenton, 22:09
- mailing lists (was - simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?), william(at)elan.net, 19:05
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:52
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Dave Crocker, 14:37
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, John Dennis, 10:43
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, william(at)elan.net, 10:37
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, David Woodhouse, 10:26
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 10:16
- RE: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Robert Barclay, 10:07
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Murray S. Kucherawy, 09:52
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, John Dennis, 09:19
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), Jim Fenton, 08:52
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), Jim Fenton, 08:52
- simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Michael Thomas, 08:39
- Re: simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, David Woodhouse, 08:33
- simplicity, focus and adoption; what problem are we trying to solve?, Dave Crocker, 07:38
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), David Woodhouse, 05:01
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz, 03:44
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), william(at)elan.net, 03:24
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 02:14
- Re: Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), David Woodhouse, 02:05
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 01:35
October 27, 2004
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz, 23:36
- Mailing lists and signatures (was: Re: CircleID on DomainKeys), Jim Fenton, 22:56
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Michael Thomas, 20:17
- RE: CircleID on DomainKeys, Paul Lambert, 19:32
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Murray S. Kucherawy, 16:29
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 16:29
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Murray S. Kucherawy, 16:27
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Murray S. Kucherawy, 16:26
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Dave Crocker, 16:05
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 15:48
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 15:40
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Dave Crocker, 15:18
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz, 15:14
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 15:12
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Rand Wacker, 15:03
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Michael Thomas, 15:00
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Tony Finch, 14:54
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Rand Wacker, 14:40
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 13:07
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Justin Mason, 13:00
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Miles Libbey, 12:59
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, David Woodhouse, 12:43
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, John Levine, 10:42
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, william(at)elan.net, 08:55
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 08:43
- Re: CircleID on DomainKeys, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz, 08:04
- CircleID on DomainKeys, Andrew Newton, 04:57
October 22, 2004
- New I-D on Trusted E-mail Open Standard, John Levine, 11:09
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Michael Thomas, 09:51
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Michael Thomas, 09:46
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 09:13
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Miles Libbey, 08:43
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Michael Thomas, 07:56
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 07:44
- Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Michael Thomas, 07:19
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Michael Thomas, 07:01
- Re: Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 06:38
- Question about fenton-identified-mail-01, Cullen Jennings, 06:04
October 17, 2004
- New Identified Internet Mail draft, Jim Fenton, 22:52
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Peterson, Jon, 16:28
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Seth Goodman, 10:44
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Peterson, Jon, 01:34
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Peterson, Jon, 00:39
- Re: A large scale domain keys test, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 00:29
October 16, 2004
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Jim Fenton, 19:53
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Seth Goodman, 15:22
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Michael Thomas, 14:11
- RE: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Peterson, Jon, 12:49
- A large scale domain keys test, John Levine, 11:33
- Re: a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, George Gross, 06:33
- a draft on messaging, impersonation and identity, Peterson, Jon, 03:24
October 14, 2004
- Re: Ways to proceed, Andrew Newton, 12:03
- RE: Ways to proceed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:47
- Re: Ways to proceed, Andrew Newton, 11:20
- RE: Ways to proceed, George Gross, 11:09
- RE: Ways to proceed, Atul.Sharma, 10:43
- RE: Ways to proceed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:59
- RE: Ways to proceed, George Gross, 09:41
- RE: Ways to proceed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:46
- RE: Ways to proceed, Atul.Sharma, 06:51
- RE: Ways to proceed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:26
- RE: Ways to proceed, william(at)elan.net, 05:50
- RE: Ways to proceed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:26
October 11, 2004
- Re: TEOS, was Comparison Matrix on proposals, william(at)elan.net, 16:39
- Re: TEOS, was Comparison Matrix on proposals, John Levine, 15:11
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 11:38
- Re: Requiring no MIME support, rbarclay, 10:24
- Re: Requiring no MIME support, Dave Crocker, 09:30
- Re: Requiring no MIME support, Jim Fenton, 09:18
- Requiring no MIME support, Dave Crocker, 08:59
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, Jim Fenton, 08:35
- RE: OT question on S/MIME, Atul.Sharma, 04:52
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 00:48
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 00:36
October 10, 2004
- Re: Comparison Matrix on proposals, william(at)elan.net, 23:47
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 23:31
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, Jim Fenton, 23:21
- Re: Comparison Matrix on proposals, Jim Fenton, 23:05
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 22:44
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 19:24
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 19:00
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 18:28
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 17:52
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 17:30
- Re: Comparison Matrix on proposals, Andrew Newton, 16:01
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 14:22
- RE: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, Seth Goodman, 11:59
- Re: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 11:41
- Re: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, John R Levine, 11:13
- Re: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, Dave Crocker, 10:29
- Re: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 09:41
- Re: transition to MASS, was Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 07:05
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, william(at)elan.net, 04:36
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 02:03
- RE: charter constraints list, william(at)elan.net, 00:29
October 09, 2004
- Re: semantics of the signature, william(at)elan.net, 23:53
- Comparison Matrix on proposals, william(at)elan.net, 23:13
- Re: what MTAs do, was semantics of the signature, John Levine, 17:37
- RE: charter constraints list, Michael Thomas, 14:07
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 14:02
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 13:31
- RE: charter constraints list, Michael Thomas, 12:50
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 12:24
- RE: Mandating MIME, Seth Goodman, 09:01
- Re: semantics of the signature, Dave Crocker, 08:53
- Re: semantics of the signature, Dave Crocker, 08:49
- Re: semantics of the signature, Michael Thomas, 07:36
- Re: semantics of the signature, Jim Fenton, 07:30
- Re: semantics of the signature, Jim Fenton, 07:07
- RE: charter constraints list, Michael Thomas, 06:59
October 08, 2004
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, John R Levine, 22:45
- Re: semantics of the signature, william(at)elan.net, 21:23
- Re: semantics of the signature, Andrew Newton, 20:57
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 20:33
- Re: Mandating MIME, Jim Fenton, 17:20
- Re: Anonymity use cases, Jim Fenton, 17:20
- Re: semantics of the signature, Jim Fenton, 17:20
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Michael Thomas, 17:01
- OT question on S/MIME, william(at)elan.net, 14:41
- Re: Mandating MIME, Dave Crocker, 14:26
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 14:01
- Re: semantics of the signature, Andrew Newton, 13:54
- Re: Anonymity use cases, Andrew Newton, 13:45
- Re: semantics of the signature, Dave Crocker, 13:42
- Re: Mandating MIME, James M Galvin, 13:33
- Re: semantics of the signature, william(at)elan.net, 13:27
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 13:13
- Re: signature semantics-my take, James M Galvin, 13:01
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 12:58
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 12:50
- RE: semantics of the signature, Seth Goodman, 11:45
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Michael Thomas, 09:23
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, David Woodhouse, 07:30
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, David Woodhouse, 06:45
- RE: semantics of the signature, Tony Finch, 03:00
October 07, 2004
- Re: semantics of the signature, Dave Crocker, 21:23
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Dave Crocker, 21:22
- Re: Mandating MIME, John Levine, 16:03
- Mandating MIME, Jim Fenton, 14:36
- Anonymity use cases, Jim Fenton, 14:36
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 13:34
- Re: semantics of the signature, Andrew Newton, 13:16
- RE: semantics of the signature, Seth Goodman, 12:23
- Re: semantics of the signature, Jim Fenton, 11:36
- RE: semantics of the signature, Michael Thomas, 11:23
- RE: semantics of the signature, Seth Goodman, 11:01
- RE: semantics of the signature, Tony Finch, 10:39
- RE: semantics of the signature, Seth Goodman, 10:32
- Re: costs of different approaches, wayne, 09:43
- signature semantics-my take, rbarclay, 09:35
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 09:24
- Re: costs of different approaches, Rand Wacker, 09:08
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Mark Baugher, 09:05
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Miles Libbey, 08:53
- Re: semantics of the signature, Andrew Newton, 08:08
- Re: semantics of the signature, Tony Finch, 07:34
- Re: costs of different approaches, wayne, 07:26
- Re: semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 06:55
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 06:25
October 06, 2004
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 23:49
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Craig McGregor, 20:38
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 16:43
- Re: the DNS issue, John Levine, 16:16
- RE: charter constraints list, Jim Fenton, 16:08
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 14:37
- Re: costs of different approaches, william(at)elan.net, 13:19
- Re: costs of different approaches, Carl Hutzler, 11:55
- Re: costs of different approaches, Rand Wacker, 11:36
- Re: costs of different approaches, Carl Hutzler, 11:21
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, John R Levine, 10:04
- anonymity, Tony Finch, 09:44
- RE: charter constraints list, Jim Fenton, 09:15
- Re: semantics of the signature, Tony Finch, 09:04
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, william(at)elan.net, 08:53
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James M Galvin, 08:35
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James M Galvin, 08:33
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 08:32
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Miles Libbey, 08:32
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James M Galvin, 08:20
- semantics of the signature, James M Galvin, 08:12
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 08:11
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Michael Thomas, 08:05
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Tony Finch, 08:03
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Andrew Newton, 08:01
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, william(at)elan.net, 07:29
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Dave Crocker, 07:28
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Michael Thomas, 07:02
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, william(at)elan.net, 07:02
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 06:59
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Andrew Newton, 06:50
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 06:05
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 03:12
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, william(at)elan.net, 02:58
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 02:38
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James Scott, 01:17
October 05, 2004
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 23:31
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Craig McGregor, 22:43
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 22:30
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, John R Levine, 20:50
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Dave Crocker, 20:37
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 20:22
- Re: candidate MASS charter, Dave Crocker, 18:22
- RE: charter constraints list, Michael Thomas, 17:24
- Re: costs of different approaches, Michael Thomas, 17:19
- Re: candidate MASS charter, Jim Fenton, 16:58
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 16:50
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Jim Fenton, 16:16
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Craig McGregor, 16:14
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, Michael Thomas, 16:08
- Re: charter constraints list, Jim Fenton, 15:57
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, Dave Crocker, 15:46
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, Jim Fenton, 15:14
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, Jim Fenton, 15:14
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Dave Crocker, 14:32
- RE: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James Scott, 14:20
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, James M Galvin, 13:55
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Dave Crocker, 11:17
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Jim Fenton, 10:30
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, George Gross, 06:29
October 04, 2004
- Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, John Levine, 21:53
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, Jon Callas, 14:09
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, rbarclay, 11:24
- Re: costs of different approaches, Rand Wacker, 09:42
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, George Gross, 06:33
- Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol, Andrew Newton, 05:14
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, Andrew Newton, 05:08
October 03, 2004
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 19:30
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, John Levine, 19:30
- RE: charter constraints list, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 18:16
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, George Gross, 16:35
- RE: charter constraints list, George Gross, 16:02
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 14:24
- RE: Rambings on RFC2822 signatures., Michael Thomas, 11:39
- RE: Rambings on RFC2822 signatures., Dave Crocker, 11:28
- RE: Rambings on RFC2822 signatures., Michael Thomas, 11:18
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 08:08
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 08:02
- RE: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 07:37
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 07:34
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 07:29
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 07:22
October 02, 2004
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, ned . freed, 20:25
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, wayne, 18:08
- Re: charter constraints list, ned . freed, 14:45
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 14:05
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Andrew Newton, 13:12
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, John Levine, 13:11
- RE: charter constraints list, Miles Libbey, 11:09
- RE: charter constraints list, Dave Crocker, 10:18
- RE: charter constraints list, Seth Goodman, 10:12
- RE: Rambings on RFC2822 signatures., Dave Crocker, 08:45
- charter constraints list, Dave Crocker, 08:45
- costs of different approaches, Dave Crocker, 08:45
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Miles Libbey, 08:32
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, ned . freed, 04:44
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, Andrew Newton, 04:32
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Andrew Newton, 03:51
October 01, 2004
- Re: Why we really don't require requirements, John Levine, 18:56
- RE: Why we don't require requirements, Paul Lambert, 16:58
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, Tony Finch, 13:58
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 13:25
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, wayne, 13:12
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, ned . freed, 12:56
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, wayne, 12:52
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Miles Libbey, 12:21
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 11:50
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 11:45
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 11:30
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, Andrew Newton, 10:05
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, Andrew Newton, 10:03
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 09:23
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, John Levine, 08:50
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, David Woodhouse, 06:45
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, James M Galvin, 06:41
- Re: Anonymous signed mail, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 00:34
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, domainkeys-feedbackbase01, 00:20
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 00:05
- Re: Why we don't require requirements, william(at)elan.net, 00:04