IETF DKIM (date)
January 31, 2008
- [ietf-dkim] Draft of ASP, Author Signing Policy, John L, 21:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 16:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Hector Santos, 15:05
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 14:11
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 12:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 11:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 10:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 07:26
January 30, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 11:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jeff Macdonald, 08:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jeff Macdonald, 07:52
- [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP, Frank Ellermann, 07:40
- [ietf-dkim] Issue 1542: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update, Hector Santos, 06:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 04:41
January 29, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jeff Macdonald, 17:28
- [ietf-dkim] DNS delegation takes care of the authorization, Douglas Otis, 15:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 14:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 13:08
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Siegel, Ellen, 12:50
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 12:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jeff Macdonald, 12:45
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 12:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 12:30
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 11:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jeff Macdonald, 11:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Jeff Macdonald, 09:26
January 28, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Douglas Otis, 19:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages, Damon, 16:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages, Hector Santos, 15:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages, Hector Santos, 15:30
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 14:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Scott Kitterman, 14:10
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 14:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Hector Santos, 13:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, John Levine, 12:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Michael Thomas, 12:36
- [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 12:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Damon, 12:07
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Damon, 11:53
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Hector Santos, 11:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Scott Kitterman, 11:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Hector Santos, 11:11
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, ned+dkim, 11:01
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Hector Santos, 10:48
- [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 10:26
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 10:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Tony Finch, 10:13
- Re: Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Paul Hoffman, 10:00
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Siegel, Ellen, 09:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Dave Crocker, 09:41
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 08:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Scott Kitterman, 08:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 08:26
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 08:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Charles Lindsey, 05:12
- Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Charles Lindsey, 05:00
January 27, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Damon, 22:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jim Fenton, 13:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, John Levine, 12:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Michael Thomas, 10:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Wietse Venema, 09:20
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 07:52
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 07:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Hector Santos, 02:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Eliot Lear, 01:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Hector Santos, 01:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jim Fenton, 00:48
January 26, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, John Levine, 19:50
- RE: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Bill.Oxley, 19:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Bill.Oxley, 19:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jim Fenton, 18:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Hector Santos, 09:39
- [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP, Frank Ellermann, 03:43
- [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 03:23
January 25, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, John L, 22:18
- reputation is orthogonal (RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages), J D Falk, 19:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Paul Hoffman, 18:24
- [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP, Jim Fenton, 17:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 17:07
- [ietf-dkim] Price of Rice in China, Hector Santos, 16:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Damon, 16:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, John Levine, 15:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation, Hector Santos, 12:33
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation, Frank Ellermann, 11:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation, Hector Santos, 11:59
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 11:24
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation, Hector Santos, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1521 will damage DKIM/SSP, Hector Santos, 10:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Hector Santos, 10:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Damon, 10:36
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Bill.Oxley, 10:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 09:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures, Charles Lindsey, 09:01
- Re: reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.), Eliot Lear, 08:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Charles Lindsey, 08:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation (was: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages), Charles Lindsey, 08:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Charles Lindsey, 08:27
- [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 08:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Mark Delany, 06:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 05:39
- [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation (was: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages), Frank Ellermann, 02:40
- [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages, Frank Ellermann, 01:45
January 24, 2008
- [ietf-dkim] Bug or Feature, Scott Kitterman, 23:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Hector Santos, 21:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages, SM, 20:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, robert, 20:42
- [ietf-dkim] Reputation vs SSP, Douglas Otis, 20:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Steve Atkins, 20:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages, John Levine, 19:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Hector Santos, 19:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 18:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Mark Delany, 18:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages, Damon, 18:14
- [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages, Michael Thomas, 18:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Wietse Venema, 17:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, Douglas Otis, 17:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, Dave Crocker, 16:38
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 16:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Wietse Venema, 16:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Douglas Otis, 15:43
- [ietf-dkim] The first Internet mailing list, Dave Crocker, 15:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 15:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 15:26
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, robert, 15:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 15:17
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 15:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, Hector Santos, 15:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, John Levine, 14:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works, John Levine, 13:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Michael Thomas, 13:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Wietse Venema, 13:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Steve Atkins, 13:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Wietse Venema, 13:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Damon, 13:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Damon, 13:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Jim Fenton, 13:22
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 13:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures, Douglas Otis, 13:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jim Fenton, 13:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 13:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 13:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 13:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Arvel Hathcock, 13:01
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Jim Fenton, 12:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, John Levine, 12:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, John Levine, 12:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:11
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 12:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Douglas Otis, 11:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Hector Santos, 11:37
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Siegel, Ellen, 11:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Siegel, Ellen, 11:29
- Re: reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.), Steve Atkins, 11:21
- reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.), J D Falk, 11:15
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, robert, 11:02
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, J D Falk, 11:01
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery, Frank Ellermann, 10:56
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Frank Ellermann, 10:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Scott Kitterman, 10:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 10:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 10:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Jim Fenton, 10:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery, Hector Santos, 10:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Steve Atkins, 10:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Michael Thomas, 10:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages, Bill.Oxley, 10:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Steve Atkins, 10:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Damon, 09:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Wietse Venema, 09:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, John Levine, 09:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Damon, 09:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 09:29
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery, Frank Ellermann, 08:56
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Siegel, Ellen, 08:47
- [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy, Frank Ellermann, 08:47
- [ietf-dkim] Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery, hsantos, 08:25
- re: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, hsantos, 08:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy, Michael Thomas, 07:54
- re: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, hsantos, 07:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy, Wietse Venema, 07:22
- re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., hsantos, 06:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures, Charles Lindsey, 05:42
- [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy, Frank Ellermann, 05:27
January 23, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jim Fenton, 23:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, Dave Crocker, 19:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields asinput to SSP, Douglas Otis, 19:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, John L, 18:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Douglas Otis, 18:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Hector Santos, 18:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Scott Kitterman, 18:19
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields asinput to SSP, Frank Ellermann, 18:07
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP, Michael Thomas, 18:05
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Frank Ellermann, 17:53
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP, Arvel Hathcock, 17:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Dave Crocker, 17:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Dave Crocker, 17:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Arvel Hathcock, 17:38
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Hector Santos, 17:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly., Michael Thomas, 16:51
- [ietf-dkim] Srsly., J D Falk, 16:32
- RE: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 16:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Douglas Otis, 15:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Douglas Otis, 15:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Hector Santos, 14:20
- Re: [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy, John Levine, 14:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Jon Callas, 14:12
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 13:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., MH Michael Hammer (5304), 13:24
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures, Douglas Otis, 12:59
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Siegel, Ellen, 12:50
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Frank Ellermann, 12:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Damon, 12:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Dave Crocker, 11:47
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP, Michael Thomas, 11:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jon Callas, 11:41
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., robert, 09:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 09:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Michael Thomas, 09:23
- New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously.), Stephen Farrell, 09:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., ned+dkim, 08:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., MH Michael Hammer (5304), 08:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jim Fenton, 08:24
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 08:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jim Fenton, 08:01
- Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Charles Lindsey, 05:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jon Callas, 03:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Jim Fenton, 00:19
January 22, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 23:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., John Levine, 22:15
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 19:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 18:09
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., SM, 16:06
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., ned+dkim, 14:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Dave Crocker, 13:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Douglas Otis, 13:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Michael Thomas, 13:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 13:23
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 13:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Douglas Otis, 12:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Dave Crocker, 12:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Michael Thomas, 12:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Dave Crocker, 12:31
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 12:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Dave Crocker, 12:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Michael Thomas, 12:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 11:51
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Siegel, Ellen, 11:46
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 11:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 11:07
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., MH Michael Hammer (5304), 10:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Stephen Farrell, 10:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Dave Crocker, 09:42
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Stephen Farrell, 08:46
- RE: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Siegel, Ellen, 08:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?), Damon, 07:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Damon, 07:51
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Frank Ellermann, 07:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Charles Lindsey, 04:17
January 21, 2008
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 21:12
- [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?, Douglas Otis, 19:55
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., J D Falk, 16:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., SM, 14:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Barry Leiba, 13:58
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., ned+dkim, 13:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., ned+dkim, 13:05
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Audian Paxson, 12:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Dave Crocker, 12:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Tony Finch, 12:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 04:54
January 19, 2008
- [ietf-dkim] adding DKIM to Thunderbird 'verification' extension, Dave Crocker, 15:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?), Douglas Otis, 14:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] quick test, Tony Hansen, 12:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Hector Santos, 10:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 07:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Matthew Joseff, 06:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Eliot Lear, 05:16
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 01:17
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?), Frank Ellermann, 00:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, SM, 00:37
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously., Frank Ellermann, 00:35
- [ietf-dkim] Re: quick test, Frank Ellermann, 00:08
January 18, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] quick test, John Levine, 22:18
- RE: [ietf-dkim] quick test, J D Falk, 21:25
- [ietf-dkim] quick test, J.D. Falk, 21:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously., Steve Atkins, 20:09
- [ietf-dkim] Seriously., J D Falk, 19:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock, 18:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock, 18:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Jon Callas, 16:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock, 16:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1, Michael Thomas, 14:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 14:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1, John L, 14:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1, Michael Thomas, 14:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1, John L, 14:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 14:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 13:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 13:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 13:16
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 13:04
- [ietf-dkim] DKIM performance metrics studies?, Dave Crocker, 12:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock, 11:17
- RE: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Bill.Oxley, 11:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Dave Crocker, 11:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock, 10:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock, 10:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Michael Thomas, 10:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, John L, 10:25
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 10:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 10:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Michael Thomas, 10:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, John L, 10:00
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: OT: 300,000 bounces, John Levine, 09:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John Levine, 09:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Michael Thomas, 09:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 09:28
- RE: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, robert, 09:19
- [ietf-dkim] Re: OT: 300,000 bounces, Frank Ellermann, 07:00
- [ietf-dkim] 1534 (was: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Frank Ellermann, 06:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Stephen Farrell, 04:17
January 17, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] OT: 300, 000 bounces (was: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties), John Levine, 23:40
- [ietf-dkim] OT: 300, 000 bounces (was: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties), Frank Ellermann, 23:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Hector Santos, 22:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, John L, 22:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Hector Santos, 21:58
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 21:30
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 21:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 15:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 15:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 15:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 14:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 14:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 14:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 13:28
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 13:16
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, robert, 13:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 12:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 12:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 12:39
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Bill.Oxley, 12:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Michael Thomas, 11:57
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, Scott Kitterman, 11:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Eliot Lear, 11:34
- [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties, John L, 11:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 11:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 11:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock, 10:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Douglas Otis, 10:49
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), Jim Fenton, 10:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Jim Fenton, 09:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Eliot Lear, 08:56
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Michael Thomas, 08:47
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Eliot Lear, 08:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Michael Thomas, 08:34
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 08:26
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Eliot Lear, 08:17
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 08:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Eliot Lear, 07:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 07:40
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Eliot Lear, 07:21
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Eliot Lear, 06:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 06:10
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), John L, 06:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 05:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 00:10
January 16, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Jim Fenton, 23:40
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), Jim Fenton, 23:28
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 22:51
- MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), J D Falk, 22:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 20:05
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Dave Crocker, 19:36
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Dave Crocker, 19:30
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Michael Thomas, 19:01
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Dave Crocker, 18:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 18:32
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Michael Thomas, 18:27
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 18:23
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 18:17
- Re: MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics), Dave Crocker, 18:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 18:14
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 18:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 18:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 18:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 18:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jon Callas, 18:02
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 17:59
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, John L, 17:57
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), John L, 17:52
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 17:37
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), Jim Fenton, 17:30
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 17:30
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 17:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 17:16
- Re: [ietf-dkim] No teleconference, Jon Callas, 17:13
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jon Callas, 17:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 17:01
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Bill.Oxley, 16:54
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers, Michael Thomas, 16:48
- RE: [ietf-dkim] No teleconference, Bill.Oxley, 16:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers, Steve Atkins, 16:38
- [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers, Michael Thomas, 16:25
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 15:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Scott Kitterman, 15:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock, 14:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 14:06
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 14:01
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, robert, 13:50
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 13:33
- Re: 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), John Levine, 13:18
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 13:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 12:52
- [ietf-dkim] No teleconference, DKIM Chair, 12:46
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 12:29
- Re: 1:1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), Scott Kitterman, 12:19
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics, J D Falk, 12:08
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 11:53
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 11:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 11:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 11:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 11:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Michael Thomas, 11:09
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 10:56
- 1:1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics), J D Falk, 10:31
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 08:55
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Stephen Farrell, 08:36
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 07:59
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Stephen Farrell, 07:44
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 04:15
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 01:15
January 15, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Dave Crocker, 20:22
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 17:39
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Jim Fenton, 17:29
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, J D Falk, 16:11
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Jim Fenton, 15:59
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Jim Fenton, 15:33
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS, Douglas Otis, 13:18
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Eliot Lear, 11:42
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Eliot Lear, 11:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, John Levine, 11:37
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Steve Atkins, 11:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 10:59
- RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, J D Falk, 10:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Charles Lindsey, 05:11
January 14, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Dave Crocker, 23:47
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS, Frank Ellermann, 23:01
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Douglas Otis, 21:47
- [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Frank Ellermann, 20:41
- Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Barry Leiba, 15:28
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Dave Crocker, 10:39
- [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages, Dave Crocker, 10:29
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration, Florian Sager, 03:20
January 11, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict", Douglas Otis, 13:35
- Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration, John Levine, 13:22
- [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration, Florian Sager, 13:03
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS], Michael Thomas, 09:02
- Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS] (was: SSP issues status), Charles Lindsey, 08:47
- [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS] (was: SSP issues status), Frank Ellermann, 00:48
January 10, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP issues status, Jim Fenton, 23:42
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP issues status, Frank Ellermann, 22:46
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict", Jim Fenton, 17:06
- [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict", Douglas Otis, 13:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Mark Martinec, 12:42
- [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status, Stephen Farrell, 11:30
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, J D Falk, 11:08
January 09, 2008
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on verysmall businesses, Frank Ellermann, 18:43
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?, Dave Crocker, 12:04
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Jim Fenton, 08:56
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Siegel, Ellen, 08:51
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?, Tony Hansen, 08:48
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, Jim Fenton, 08:32
- Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?, Jim Fenton, 08:26
- [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?, Livingood, Jason, 07:19
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, Frank Ellermann, 05:45
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, Charles Lindsey, 04:41
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Frank Ellermann, 03:09
- [ietf-dkim] Re: Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, Frank Ellermann, 02:36
January 08, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Jim Fenton, 21:19
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Douglas Otis, 19:58
- [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses, Siegel, Ellen, 13:12
- RE: [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, robert, 12:10
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, Jim Fenton, 11:42
- [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP, robert, 11:22
January 03, 2008
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS, Douglas Otis, 20:16
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendationfor an RFC 4871 update, Frank Ellermann, 08:49
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update, Hector Santos, 03:27
- [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update, Frank Ellermann, 02:59
- [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS, Frank Ellermann, 02:45
- [ietf-dkim] New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update, Hector Santos, 01:54
- [ietf-dkim] Issue #1541 - Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?, Hector Santos, 01:14