IETF DKIM (date)
February 28, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] some issues with draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt, Tony Hansen, 22:41
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Mark Delany, 12:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton, 12:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla, 11:08
- [ietf-dkim] Amplification attack solution., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net, 08:57
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, stephen . farrell, 01:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton, 00:01
February 27, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Jim Fenton, 23:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net, 21:38
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targetsfor spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 21:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net, 21:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Scott Kitterman, 19:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla, 18:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Douglas Otis, 18:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Jim Fenton, 17:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Douglas Otis, 17:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton, 17:13
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla, 15:27
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:30
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net, 09:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:15
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Stephen Farrell, 08:57
- [ietf-dkim] Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net, 08:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eliot Lear, 08:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker, 08:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eliot Lear, 08:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Tony Hansen, 08:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker, 02:06
February 26, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton, 23:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Scott Kitterman, 20:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed, 18:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Tony Hansen, 15:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed, 12:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed, 11:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Stephen Farrell, 05:03
February 25, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Frank Ellermann, 20:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed, 19:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Wietse Venema, 16:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Steve Atkins, 15:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker, 15:34
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Frank Ellermann, 15:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Arvel Hathcock, 15:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, John Levine, 15:13
- [ietf-dkim] Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Frank Ellermann, 15:08
- [ietf-dkim] Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker, 14:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas, 14:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker, 11:00
- [ietf-dkim] Re: signature h= and z= tags, Frank Ellermann, 10:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear, 10:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Steve Atkins, 09:16
February 24, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] signature h= and z= tags, Hector Santos, 21:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos, 15:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell, 14:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 14:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John R Levine, 14:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Hector Santos, 14:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos, 14:04
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker, 10:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker, 09:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell, 09:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear, 09:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John R Levine, 09:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John Levine, 08:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear, 00:16
February 23, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 23:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 23:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 23:14
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany, 20:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 19:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas, 18:25
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 14:48
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell, 14:14
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 13:17
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Scott Kitterman, 11:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 10:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Arvel Hathcock, 09:47
February 22, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] signature h= and z= tags, Hector Santos, 23:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 20:54
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Douglas Otis, 20:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen, 20:07
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany, 19:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Michael Thomas, 19:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:21
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Mark Delany, 18:33
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Douglas Otis, 18:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Mark Delany, 17:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany, 17:45
- No new PKIs! (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Stephen Farrell, 17:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed, 17:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Ned Freed, 17:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 16:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas, 15:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis, 15:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Jon Callas, 15:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas, 15:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Tony Hansen, 14:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos, 14:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis, 14:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen, 14:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen, 14:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos, 13:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos, 13:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Arvel Hathcock, 13:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, william(at)elan.net, 13:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Hector Santos, 13:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Jon Callas, 13:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Mark Delany, 13:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos, 12:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 12:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos, 12:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas, 12:30
- [ietf-dkim] Re: authentification-results draft?, Frank Ellermann, 12:22
- [ietf-dkim] Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Jon Callas, 12:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits, Jon Callas, 12:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker, 11:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed, 11:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 11:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker, 11:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed, 11:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear, 11:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Douglas Otis, 11:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Tony Hansen, 11:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 11:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 11:15
- [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker, 11:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis, 10:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear, 10:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 10:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear, 10:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas, 10:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Michael Thomas, 10:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eric Rescorla, 10:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas, 10:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] authentification-results draft?, Michael Thomas, 10:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] authentification-results draft?, J.D. Falk, 10:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas, 10:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 09:32
- [ietf-dkim] authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen, 08:59
- [ietf-dkim] International Conference on Network Security 2006, Robert Holliday, 08:14
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 06:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Hector Santos, 06:44
- [ietf-dkim] Open Issues at this time, Eliot Lear, 01:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear, 01:07
February 21, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Mark Delany, 23:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 22:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Douglas Otis, 17:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 16:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas, 16:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell, 16:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen, 16:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen, 16:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 15:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 15:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Tony Hansen, 14:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed, 14:50
- [ietf-dkim] Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Frank Ellermann, 14:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Douglas Otis, 13:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 13:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Arvel Hathcock, 13:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Stephen Farrell, 13:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Arvel Hathcock, 12:48
- RE: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:35
- RE: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Dave Crocker, 10:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:26
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:19
- [ietf-dkim] Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Stephen Farrell, 10:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Arvel Hathcock, 10:01
- [ietf-dkim] Please resend: any mail send to me after 8am Monday., Dave Crocker, 10:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Michael Thomas, 09:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas, 09:23
- [ietf-dkim] issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Tony Hansen, 09:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Andrew Newton, 09:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 08:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Michael Thomas, 08:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas, 08:32
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Bill.Oxley, 08:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen, 07:20
- [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits, Frank Ellermann, 05:49
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: extensions to the RR, Eliot Lear, 01:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear, 00:43
February 20, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen, 20:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Mark Delany, 18:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Dave Crocker, 18:13
- [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen, 18:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Andrew Newton, 17:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 17:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Douglas Otis, 16:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Stephen Farrell, 16:52
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Daniel Dreymann, 16:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Jim Fenton, 15:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Arvel Hathcock, 15:24
- RE: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:47
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Douglas Otis, 14:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Stephen Farrell, 14:07
- [ietf-dkim] small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Tony Hansen, 13:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis, 12:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Arvel Hathcock, 11:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 11:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Stephen Farrell, 05:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Dave Crocker, 04:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Jim Fenton, 00:33
February 17, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] New DKIM FAQ, Dave Crocker, 12:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis, 12:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, william(at)elan.net, 11:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear, 10:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear, 09:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen, 09:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas, 08:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman, 08:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas, 07:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman, 07:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM, 06:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Stephen Farrell, 03:16
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann, 02:25
February 16, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany, 23:51
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann, 21:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen, 20:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis, 19:43
- [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany, 19:21
- [ietf-dkim] SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Mark Delany, 19:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany, 19:05
- RE: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Bill.Oxley, 14:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman, 14:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 11:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Douglas Otis, 11:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 11:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 11:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 10:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 10:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 10:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 10:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 10:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 10:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 09:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 09:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Steve Atkins, 09:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 09:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Michael Thomas, 09:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 09:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear, 06:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 05:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany, 00:48
February 15, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 23:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany, 20:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman, 19:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 18:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 17:53
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Stephen Farrell, 17:49
- [ietf-dkim] Re: (-base document) clarifications on use of l= tag, Frank Ellermann, 17:17
- [ietf-dkim] Handling Invalid Signatures, Hector Santos, 16:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 16:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman, 15:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 15:43
- [ietf-dkim] (-base document) clarifications on use of l= tag, Eric Allman, 15:26
- [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker, 15:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 13:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman, 13:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 13:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eric Allman, 13:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 13:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Douglas Otis, 13:03
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann, 12:36
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann, 12:09
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Frank Ellermann, 11:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Michael Thomas, 11:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Douglas Otis, 10:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Arvel Hathcock, 10:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 10:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 10:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Arvel Hathcock, 10:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker, 09:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell, 06:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Stephen Farrell, 05:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Peter Koch, 01:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 submitted, Mark Delany, 01:29
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany, 00:49
February 14, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, John Levine, 21:24
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Markley, Mike, 19:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Dave Crocker, 19:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Hector Santos, 19:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas, 19:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Markley, Mike, 19:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Douglas Otis, 17:34
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann, 17:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Mark Delany, 16:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Hector Santos, 16:47
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Markley, Mike, 16:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 16:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Hector Santos, 15:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 13:05
February 12, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann, 22:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 18:48
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann, 17:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 11:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Douglas Otis, 10:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Jim Fenton, 00:13
February 11, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Jim Fenton, 23:34
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Frank Ellermann, 15:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Douglas Otis, 14:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Douglas Otis, 13:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Michael Thomas, 13:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Hector Santos, 13:20
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Frank Ellermann, 13:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Hector Santos, 12:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Dave Crocker, 12:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Michael Thomas, 12:42
- [ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec), Frank Ellermann, 12:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Douglas Otis, 11:05
- [ietf-dkim] Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Frank Ellermann, 10:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] fyi- current open issues, Eliot Lear, 09:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Douglas Otis, 07:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 01:20
February 10, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Tony Hansen, 23:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Dave Crocker, 23:05
- RE: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Bill.Oxley, 20:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Dave Crocker, 16:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos, 16:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Michael Thomas, 16:00
- [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Tony Hansen, 15:39
February 03, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] dkim web page update, Dave Crocker, 15:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 14:07
- [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 submitted, Eric Allman, 13:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Stephen Farrell, 12:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 11:57
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann, 08:00
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Bill.Oxley, 07:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Stephen Farrell, 02:55
February 02, 2006
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 22:36
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann, 20:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos, 19:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Douglas Otis, 17:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 15:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Arvel Hathcock, 11:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Arvel Hathcock, 11:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalization, Arvel Hathcock, 11:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again, Arvel Hathcock, 11:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos, 08:14
February 01, 2006
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, Frank Ellermann, 23:54
- [ietf-dkim] Re: now up on roundup tracker, Frank Ellermann, 23:41
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann, 23:28
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Frank Ellermann, 23:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos, 21:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks, Jim Fenton, 17:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Stephen Farrell, 16:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Mark Delany, 16:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Douglas Otis, 15:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Michael Thomas, 14:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos, 14:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker, 14:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Stephen Farrell, 13:50
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Bill.Oxley, 13:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos, 13:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker, 12:41
- [ietf-dkim] touting the DKIM Supporters list, Dave Crocker, 12:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Jeff Macdonald, 11:55
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis, 11:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] now up on roundup tracker, Dave Crocker, 10:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker, 10:00
- [ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Jeff Macdonald, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos, 07:57
- [ietf-dkim] now up on roundup tracker, Eliot Lear, 02:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, Stephen Farrell, 01:05
- [ietf-dkim] Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, 山本和彦, 00:03