IETF MARID (date)

IETF MARID (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

April 30, 2004

Re: HELO, and how to mix various checks, Greg Connor, 08:10
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hector Santos, 07:30
RE: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:41
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Margaret Olson, 04:37

April 29, 2004

Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Douglas Otis, 22:23
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Greg Connor, 20:09
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:50
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Mark Baugher, 19:15
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Meng Weng Wong, 18:59
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Dave Crocker, 18:27
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Marshall Rose, 16:26
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:17
Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Pete Resnick, 15:51
Identity consensus and working group direction, Andrew Newton, 15:06
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Marshall Rose, 10:25
RE: RFC2822 attack scenario, Douglas Otis, 09:48
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Marshall Rose, 09:17
RE: RFC2822 attack scenario, Olson, Margaret, 09:07
RFC2822 attack scenario, Meng Weng Wong, 08:01
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, wayne, 06:04
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Margaret Olson, 04:54
Re: Can we start from the other end ???, Douglas Otis, 00:00

April 28, 2004

RE: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 23:26
Re: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 23:20
Re: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 21:50
Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 21:47
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hector Santos, 19:44
Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, wayne, 19:19
Caller-ID group is hiring!, Harry Katz, 19:01
Can we start from the other end ???, Neil Brown, 18:54
RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 17:05
RE: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FR OM?, Greg Connor, 16:32
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Yakov Shafranovich, 16:27
RE: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FR OM?, Olson, Margaret, 13:48
Re: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 13:05
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Marshall Rose, 11:47
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 10:07
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 09:56
RE: SPF "accredit" modifier, Harry Katz, 09:51
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09:44
RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 09:42
Re: Open vs closed specs RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 09:28
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Douglas Otis, 09:27
RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:27
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 09:21
Open vs closed specs RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:08
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), wayne, 08:57
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 08:33
Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 07:32
RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Gordon Fecyk, 07:32
Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 07:26
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 07:14
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:31
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:18
Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 01:56
Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 01:16

April 27, 2004

RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 23:10
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 23:10
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:33
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Meng Weng Wong, 17:11
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:52
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:35
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:00
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:05
Re: draft-fecyk-dmp-02, Douglas Otis, 15:03
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 14:38
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 12:57
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 12:24
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:10
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:06
RE: Matrix of consistency accuracy, Olson, Margaret, 11:35
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 10:50
Matrix of consistency accuracy, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:18
Flow diagram for receiver processing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:36
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:01
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 07:52
SPF "accredit" modifier, Meng Weng Wong, 07:36
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:51
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:41
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:11
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 04:05
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 01:45
Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 01:03
Re: On a related note - Service Liability, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 00:54

April 26, 2004

RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 23:32
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 23:32
On a related note - Service Liability, Hector Santos, 18:56
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 18:11
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 17:23
draft-fecyk-dmp-02, Gordon Fecyk, 17:09
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:02
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Pete Resnick, 14:53
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 12:57
Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 12:30
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:26
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 12:14
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Gordon Fecyk, 12:09
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 11:57
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 11:13
RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 11:03
Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Jon Kyme, 02:12

April 25, 2004

Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 18:14
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:36
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 09:24
Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Jon Kyme, 02:13

April 24, 2004

Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:54
Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Margaret Olson, 18:49
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Pete Resnick, 18:26
forwarder whitelisting with trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 18:04
Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 15:09
expressing both 2821 and 2822 directives, Meng Weng Wong, 14:01
solutions to the forwarder problem: SRS and whitelisting, Meng Weng Wong, 13:44
Re: 2821 and the deliverability problem, Margaret Olson, 12:33
Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 11:30
2821 and the deliverability problem, Meng Weng Wong, 10:29
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Philip Miller, 09:19
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 08:31
Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 08:31
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 07:22
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 07:12
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 07:09
Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 06:56
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Olson, Margaret, 05:53
Re: Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Hector Santos, 05:41
Re: Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Tony Finch, 04:00
Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 00:39
Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Harry Katz, 00:05
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 00:05

April 23, 2004

Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Philip Miller, 16:06
RE: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Olson, Margaret, 15:51
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 15:22
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Douglas Otis, 15:22
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:09
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 14:59
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:57
RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 14:56
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:50
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:45
RE: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Mark Bildner, 14:19
Re: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Alan DeKok, 12:40
Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 12:01
RE: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 11:54
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?/Towards a compromise, Douglas Otis, 11:31
Re: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Mattias Webjörn Eriksson, 10:28
FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 09:42
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 09:20
RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Gordon Fecyk, 08:57
Re: towards a compromise, Alan DeKok, 08:55
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 08:24
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 07:17
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Andrew Newton, 07:05
Re: towards a compromise, Hector Santos, 06:00
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?/Towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 05:55
Re: towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 05:09
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 02:45
Re: RE: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Jon Kyme, 02:20
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Jon Kyme, 02:08
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 01:38
Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 00:28

April 22, 2004

Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 22:50
Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 22:27
Re: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:43
Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Douglas Otis, 19:42
Re: towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 19:33
Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Philip Miller, 18:20
RE: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:02
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 17:55
Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Ted Hardie, 17:51
Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 17:51
Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 17:23
Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Hector Santos, 16:06
Re: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:10
Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, wayne, 14:35
RE: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Olson, Margaret, 14:29
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 14:15
RE: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Olson, Margaret, 13:27
Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 13:24
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:21
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 12:18
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Meng Weng Wong, 10:14
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 09:21
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Andrew Newton, 06:41
Re: towards a compromise, John Leslie, 06:34
Re: towards a compromise, Andrew Newton, 06:31
Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 05:52
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 05:49
Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 01:08
Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 00:53

April 21, 2004

Re: towards a compromise, Meng Weng Wong, 21:45
Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 21:17
why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Meng Weng Wong, 14:55
Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, william(at)elan.net, 12:30
Re: towards a compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:15
Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:03
Re: towards a compromise, David Mayne, 11:53
RE: .mxout. Internet Draft, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:34
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:08
RE: towards a compromise, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:56
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 10:49
Re: towards a compromise, David Mayne, 10:47
Re: towards a compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:35
Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:30
RE: towards a compromise, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:59
RE: towards a compromise, Gordon Fecyk, 09:38
towards a compromise, Andrew Newton, 09:15
Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 07:07
RE: A proposal on identities, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:43
RE: REVISED ANNOUNCEMENT Interim MARID Working Group Meeting, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:27
Re: Message Level Authentication, Andrew Newton, 05:51
REVISED ANNOUNCEMENT Interim MARID Working Group Meeting, Marshall Rose, 05:27
Re: A proposal on identities, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:22

April 20, 2004

Re: A proposal on identities, wayne, 22:51
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Greg Connor, 21:24
Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Meng Weng Wong, 21:18
Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 20:08
Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 20:00
Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 17:47
Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 17:14
Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 17:04
Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 16:02
RE: Message Level Authentication, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:50
RE: A proposal on identities, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:49
Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 14:40
Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 14:24
RE: A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 10:29
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Douglas Otis, 09:56
Interim MARID Working Group Meeting, Marshall Rose, 09:51
Re: RE: A proposal on identities, Jon Kyme, 02:02

April 19, 2004

RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 23:29
.mxout. Internet Draft, April Lorenzen, 22:27
.mxout. Internet Draft, April Lorenzen, 22:16
[Fwd: Request to publish LMAP proposals], Yakov Shafranovich, 21:11
Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 19:58
Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 19:15
Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 18:47
Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 17:55
RE: A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 15:36
Re: A proposal on identities, wayne, 07:57
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Markus Stumpf, 07:47
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 07:15
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Tony Finch, 03:20
Re: A proposal on identities, Jon Kyme, 01:12

April 18, 2004

Re: A proposal on identities, Greg Connor, 23:37
A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 21:57

April 17, 2004

Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:46
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:07

April 16, 2004

Re: Identities and authorization, Dave Crocker, 17:58
proposal on how to proceed, Markus Stumpf, 17:13
Re: RR-type considerations, Markus Stumpf, 16:37
RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:20
RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:57
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hector Santos, 15:52
RR-type considerations, Meng Weng Wong, 15:37
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 15:35
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hector Santos, 15:22
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 15:11
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., wayne, 14:55
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Greg Connor, 14:09
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Greg Connor, 14:01
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Alan DeKok, 10:56
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 10:36
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 10:06
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:31
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 08:45
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 07:59
RE: Identities and authorization, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:55
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Andrew Newton, 06:51
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 05:48
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 05:14
Re: Identities and authorization, Andrew Newton, 04:12
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 01:53
Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Matthew Elvey, 00:19

April 15, 2004

Re: Identities and authorization, Greg Connor, 23:58
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Greg Connor, 23:39
RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 21:21
Notice of Interim Meeting, Marshall Rose, 16:47
Re: Identities and authorization, Hector Santos, 16:23
TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hector Santos, 15:58
Identities and authorization, Andrew Newton, 15:45
Re: Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Hector Santos, 14:23
RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:35
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., wayne, 13:20
Re: Caller ID and phishing, wayne, 13:11
Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 11:52
Re: Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Markus Stumpf, 11:19
Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 10:53
Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:26
Anonymous Access RFC 2821 based Validation is the FOCUS, Hector Santos, 02:04

April 14, 2004

RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Greg Connor, 22:04
RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Harry Katz, 20:10
RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:38
RE: Caller ID and phishing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:08
Re: Caller ID and phishing, wayne, 09:26

April 13, 2004

MARID Mondays, Andrew Newton, 18:29
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 18:21
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 17:00
Caller ID and phishing, Harry Katz, 11:59
RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Harry Katz, 09:28
Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), wayne, 08:26
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 07:36
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Alan DeKok, 07:23
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:20
RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:13
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Malcolm Miles, 06:10
RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:57
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Andrew Newton, 05:16
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02:42
Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02:20
Re: What to check? (was Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Greg Connor, 01:08
Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Greg Connor, 00:34

April 12, 2004

What to check? (was Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Matthew Elvey, 23:25
Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 22:54
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Philip Miller, 21:14
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 20:58
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 20:21
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 20:15
RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 17:29
Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 16:25
accreditation vs reputation, Meng Weng Wong, 15:26
Re: Caller ID and bounce messages (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 14:30
RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Harry Katz, 13:53
RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 13:45
Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 13:28
RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Sauer, Damon, 13:18
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Hadmut Danisch, 13:00
Caller ID and bounce messages (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 12:55
Re: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, John Leslie, 11:59
Re: identities, Aredridel, 09:25
RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:23

April 11, 2004

Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Matthew Elvey, 13:01
Re: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Matthew Elvey, 12:12
Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 10:40
RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:14
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 06:35

April 10, 2004

Re: User experience, Alan DeKok, 21:27
Re: User experience, Doug Royer, 15:35
Re: User experience, Matthew Elvey, 15:20
Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 13:00
Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 11:58

April 09, 2004

RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 13:58
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 10:21
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Doug Royer, 09:54

April 08, 2004

Re: Multiple classes of mail, Meng Weng Wong, 17:59
Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:12
Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 12:54
WG Action: MTA Authorization Records in DNS (marid), The IESG, 12:41
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 12:13
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 11:44
Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 11:27
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 11:19
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 11:11
Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 10:41
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 10:05
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 09:52
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 09:28
Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 08:48
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 06:47
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 02:00

April 07, 2004

RE: User experience, Greg Connor, 23:33
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 23:01
Re: User experience, wayne, 22:54
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 22:37
Re: User experience, wayne, 21:37
Re: User experience, Pete Resnick, 21:12
Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 19:45
Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 18:59
Re: Input on identities, John Gardiner Myers, 18:39
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 17:42
Re: Multiple classes of mail, Edwin Aoki, 16:43
Re: Multiple classes of mail, Markus Stumpf, 16:35
Re: Multiple classes of mail, Mark C. Langston, 16:01
Multiple classes of mail, Meng Weng Wong, 15:48
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 15:12
Re: Input on identities, Dave Crocker, 15:05
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 14:36
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 14:22
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 13:37
Re: Input on identities, Pete Resnick, 13:02
Re: User experience, Hector Santos, 12:21
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 11:10
Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 11:09
Re: User experience, Hector Santos, 10:58
Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 10:34
Re: Input on identities, Tony Hansen, 10:33
Re: Input on identities, Pete Resnick, 09:49
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 09:43
Re: Input on identities, Dave Crocker, 09:23
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 08:51
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 08:20
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 07:44
Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 06:35
Re: User experience, Jon Kyme, 05:43
Revised initial draft:, Dave Crocker, 00:59

April 06, 2004

Re: Input on identities, Hector Santos, 23:05
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Marshall Rose, 20:44
Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 20:41
Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 20:32
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Hector Santos, 20:28
Re: User experience, Mark Baugher, 20:02
Re: User experience, wayne, 19:29
Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 18:32
Re: Input on identities, John Gardiner Myers, 18:03
RE: User experience, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:28
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Greg Connor, 16:46
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 16:34
RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 16:34
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Greg Connor, 16:26
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Hector Santos, 15:41
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Tony Hansen, 13:56
Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 13:09
Re: User experience, Mark Baugher, 12:16
Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 11:54
Re: User experience, wayne, 10:59
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Marshall Rose, 10:58
Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 10:48
User experience, Harry Katz, 10:26
Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Matthew Elvey, 09:45
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, bz, 09:23
Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Hector Santos, 09:15
Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Dave Crocker, 09:06
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 08:17
Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Markus Stumpf, 06:56
Yahoo Mail client, Hector Santos, 06:54
RE: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Sauer, Damon, 06:35
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 02:15

April 05, 2004

Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 23:58
Re: Limited scope of work (04 APR milestone), Matthew Elvey, 23:45
Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Greg Connor, 22:27
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Greg Connor, 21:39
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Doug Royer, 19:25
What we are trying to accomplish, John Leslie, 17:49
planning for the interim meeting, Andrew Newton, 16:04
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Mark C. Langston, 14:45
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Hector Santos, 14:22
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Philip Miller, 14:22
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hector Santos, 14:07
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 13:21
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., David Mayne, 13:19
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Philip Miller, 13:05
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 12:14
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 12:11
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 11:52
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Pete Resnick, 11:44
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Doug Royer, 11:40
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 10:59
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 10:05

April 04, 2004

Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Greg Connor, 13:18
Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Alan DeKok, 11:35
Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Dave Crocker, 09:19
Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Alan DeKok, 08:52

April 03, 2004

RE: Limited scope of work (04 APR milestone), Gordon Fecyk, 21:03
Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 20:41
Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Yakov Shafranovich, 19:50
Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 19:45
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:35
Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Yakov Shafranovich, 19:16
Re: Input on identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:14
ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 19:08
A thank you note, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:04
Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 18:59
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Philip Miller, 17:04
Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 16:11
Re: Input on identities, Aredridel, 11:00
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, ned . freed, 10:59
RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Pete Resnick, 10:21
Approved Charter for MARID, Andrew Newton, 09:40
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Greg Connor, 04:25

April 02, 2004

Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Mark C. Langston, 22:01
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, John Gardiner Myers, 20:00
RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:22
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Matthew Elvey, 19:07
Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 18:57
Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, John Gardiner Myers, 17:43
RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:26
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Matthew Elvey, 09:59
Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, John Leslie, 09:39

April 01, 2004

Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 23:07
Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 22:53
Re: Limited scope of work, Yakov Shafranovich, 21:44
EHLO-based validation proposal, Dave Crocker, 20:04
RE: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 19:13
Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Greg Connor, 18:11
RE: Limited scope of work, Gordon Fecyk, 18:09
Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, John Leslie, 14:20
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hector Santos, 12:19
Re: Changes required for HELO checking, Marshall Rose, 11:20
Changes required for HELO checking, John Leslie, 10:32
Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Matthew Elvey, 10:17
Re: Limited scope of work, Dave Crocker, 09:55
RE: Limited scope of work, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:03
Re: Input on identities - sorry, I'm stupid., Jon Kyme, 01:55
Re: Input on identities, Jon Kyme, 01:49
Re: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 01:33
Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Greg Connor, 01:27
Re: Limited scope of work, Dave Crocker, 01:09
RE: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 00:35
Re: Input on identities, Mark C. Langston, 00:03

March 31, 2004

Input on identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 23:33