Identity consensus and working group direction, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/29

• Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/29
  • Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Greg Connor, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/29
  • Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/29
• Re: Identity consensus and working group direction, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/29

RE: RFC2822 attack scenario, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/29

• RE: RFC2822 attack scenario, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/29

Re: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/28

• RE: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28

Caller-ID group is hiring!, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28

• Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, wayne, 2004/04/28
  • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hector Santos, 2004/04/28
  • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, wayne, 2004/04/29
    • RFC2822 attack scenario, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Mark Baugher, 2004/04/29
    • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/30
  • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/29
    • Message not available
    • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/29
• RE: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/30
  • Re: Caller-ID group is hiring!, Hector Santos, 2004/04/30
    • Re: HELO, and how to mix various checks, Greg Connor, 2004/04/30

Can we start from the other end ???, Neil Brown, 2004/04/28

• Re: Can we start from the other end ???, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/29

RE: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FR OM?, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/28

• RE: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FR OM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/28

Open vs closed specs RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/28

• Re: Open vs closed specs RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/28

RE: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/28

• Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/28

Matrix of consistency accuracy, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27

• RE: Matrix of consistency accuracy, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/27

SPF "accredit" modifier, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/27

• Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/28
  • Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), wayne, 2004/04/28
    • Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/28
    • Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Marshall Rose, 2004/04/28
    • Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/28
  • Re: SPF "accredit" modifier (shame!), Douglas Otis, 2004/04/28
• RE: SPF "accredit" modifier, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28

On a related note - Service Liability, Hector Santos, 2004/04/26

• Re: On a related note - Service Liability, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/27

draft-fecyk-dmp-02, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/26

• Re: draft-fecyk-dmp-02, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/27

Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Harry Katz, 2004/04/24

• Re: Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Tony Finch, 2004/04/24
• Re: Jabber chat on 2822 headers - 4/19/2004, Hector Santos, 2004/04/24

Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/22

• Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/23
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?/Towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/23
    • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?/Towards a compromise, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/23
• Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/23
• Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 2004/04/23
• FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/23
  • Re: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Mattias Webjörn Eriksson, 2004/04/23
  • Re: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/23
• RE: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/23
  • RE: FW: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Mark Bildner, 2004/04/23
• Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23
• RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/23
  • RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/23
    • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Philip Miller, 2004/04/23
  • Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/24
• RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/24
  • Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/24
    • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/24
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/24
  • Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/24
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Philip Miller, 2004/04/24
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/24
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/24
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/24
    • Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 2004/04/24
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 2004/04/24
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/24
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/24
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/25
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 2004/04/25
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/26
    • Re: Applying LMAP info in any context, Greg Connor, 2004/04/26
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/24
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/26
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/26
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/26
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/26
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/26
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/26
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/26
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26
  • Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/27
    • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/27
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Matt Sergeant, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/27
    • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
  • RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Tony Finch, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/27
  • Re: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/28
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/27
• RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/27
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/27
• RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/28
  • Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/28
• RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/28
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/28
  • Re: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/28
• RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/28
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/28
  • Re: RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/28
• RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28
• RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28
  • Re: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, wayne, 2004/04/28
• RE: RE: RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Harry Katz, 2004/04/28
  • Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Hector Santos, 2004/04/28
    • Re: Time-Limited "testing" attributes -> was RE: Can you ever reject mail based on RFC2821 MAIL FROM?, Greg Connor, 2004/04/28

RE: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/22

• Re: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22
• Re: RE: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23

Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Ted Hardie, 2004/04/22

• Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/22
• Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23
  • Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/23
    • Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/23
• Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/23
  • Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/23
• Re: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/23
• RE: Not just which dots, but how are they connected?, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/23
  • 2821 and the deliverability problem, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/24
    • Re: 2821 and the deliverability problem, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/24
    • solutions to the forwarder problem: SRS and whitelisting, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/24
    • expressing both 2821 and 2822 directives, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/24
    • forwarder whitelisting with trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/24

RE: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/22

• Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 2004/04/22
  • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22
  • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 2004/04/23
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/23
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/23
• RE: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Olson, Margaret, 2004/04/22

Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/22

• Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/22
  • Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Hector Santos, 2004/04/22
    • Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/22
    • Re: Client SMTP Validation jabber summary, Philip Miller, 2004/04/22

towards a compromise, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/21

• Re: towards a compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/21
• Re: towards a compromise, David Mayne, 2004/04/21
• Re: towards a compromise, David Mayne, 2004/04/21
• Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 2004/04/21
  • Re: towards a compromise, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/21
  • Re: towards a compromise, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/22
  • Re: towards a compromise, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/23
• Re: towards a compromise, John Leslie, 2004/04/22
  • Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 2004/04/22
    • Re: towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/22
    • Re: towards a compromise, Greg Connor, 2004/04/22
    • Re: towards a compromise, Margaret Olson, 2004/04/23
    • Re: towards a compromise, Hector Santos, 2004/04/23
• Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, wayne, 2004/04/22
  • Re: Can we split track the RFC2821 and RFC2822 proposals?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22
• RE: towards a compromise, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/21
• RE: towards a compromise, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21
• RE: towards a compromise, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21
  • Re: towards a compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/21
  • why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/21
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, wayne, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/22
    • Re: why we should not be ambiguous about receiver behaviour, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22

REVISED ANNOUNCEMENT Interim MARID Working Group Meeting, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/21

• RE: REVISED ANNOUNCEMENT Interim MARID Working Group Meeting, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21

.mxout. Internet Draft, April Lorenzen, 2004/04/19

• Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/20
  • Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/21
  • Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, william(at)elan.net, 2004/04/21
    • Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/22
• .mxout. Internet Draft, April Lorenzen, 2004/04/19
• RE: .mxout. Internet Draft, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21
  • Re: .mxout. Internet Draft, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/21

Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/19

• Re: Message Level Authentication, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/21
• Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/19
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/19
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 2004/04/19
• Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/20
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 2004/04/20
• RE: Message Level Authentication, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/20
• Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/20
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/20
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, George Schlossnagle, 2004/04/20
• Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/20
  • Re: Message Level Authentication, Douglas Otis, 2004/04/20
• Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/20
• Re: Message Level Authentication, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/04/21

A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 2004/04/18

• Re: A proposal on identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/18
• Re: A proposal on identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/19
• Re: A proposal on identities, wayne, 2004/04/19
• RE: A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 2004/04/19
  • Re: RE: A proposal on identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/20
• RE: A proposal on identities, Harry Katz, 2004/04/20
  • Re: A proposal on identities, wayne, 2004/04/20
    • Re: A proposal on identities, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/21
• RE: A proposal on identities, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/20
• RE: A proposal on identities, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21

TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hector Santos, 2004/04/15

• Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/16
• RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 2004/04/15
  • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/16
• RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/16
  • RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Greg Connor, 2004/04/16
    • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/16
    • RR-type considerations, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/16
    • Re: RR-type considerations, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/16
    • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/17
    • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/19
    • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hector Santos, 2004/04/16
• RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 2004/04/19
  • RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Douglas Otis, 2004/04/20
  • RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Greg Connor, 2004/04/20
• RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Harry Katz, 2004/04/21
• RE: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/21
  • Re: TXT lookup domain - eliminating redundancy., Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/23

Identities and authorization, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/15

• Re: Identities and authorization, Hector Santos, 2004/04/15
• Re: Identities and authorization, Greg Connor, 2004/04/15
  • Re: Identities and authorization, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Identities and authorization, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/16
• RE: Identities and authorization, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/16

RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/15

• Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., wayne, 2004/04/16
  • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hector Santos, 2004/04/16
• Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Greg Connor, 2004/04/15
• RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/16
• RE: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/16

Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/15

• Re: Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/15
• Re: Authentication of email domain name is the FOCUS, Hector Santos, 2004/04/15

Caller ID and phishing, Harry Katz, 2004/04/13

• Re: Caller ID and phishing, wayne, 2004/04/14
• RE: Caller ID and phishing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/14
  • Re: Caller ID and phishing, wayne, 2004/04/15

RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Harry Katz, 2004/04/13

• RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/14
• RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Harry Katz, 2004/04/14
  • RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Greg Connor, 2004/04/14

RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/13

• Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/13
  • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Call er ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 2004/04/13

Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 2004/04/12

• Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Greg Connor, 2004/04/13
• Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/13
  • Re: Extensibility (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), wayne, 2004/04/13

Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 2004/04/12

• Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 2004/04/12
  • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 2004/04/12
    • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Philip Miller, 2004/04/12
    • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 2004/04/13
    • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2004/04/13
  • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Malcolm Miles, 2004/04/13
• Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, wayne, 2004/04/12
• What to check? (was Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/12
  • Re: What to check? (was Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption, Greg Connor, 2004/04/13
• RE: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 2004/04/12
  • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 2004/04/12
  • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/13
    • Re: Caller ID and ease of adoption (was Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Alan DeKok, 2004/04/13

Caller ID and bounce messages (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Harry Katz, 2004/04/12

• Re: Caller ID and bounce messages (was: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC), Philip Miller, 2004/04/12

RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/12

• Re: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, John Leslie, 2004/04/12
  • accreditation vs reputation, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/12
• RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Harry Katz, 2004/04/12
• RE: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/13

User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/06

• Re: User experience, wayne, 2004/04/06
• Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/06
  • Re: User experience, Mark Baugher, 2004/04/06
    • Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/06
    • Re: User experience, Mark Baugher, 2004/04/06
• Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/06
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/06
  • Re: User experience, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/07
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/06
  • Re: User experience, wayne, 2004/04/06
    • Re: User experience, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/07
  • Re: User experience, Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/10
    • Re: User experience, Doug Royer, 2004/04/10
    • Re: User experience; RHSBLs; Strong From: check seems possible, Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/11
    • Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/15
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 2004/04/15
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., wayne, 2004/04/15
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Andrew Newton, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Jon Kyme, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Marshall Rose, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Alan DeKok, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/04/17
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Greg Connor, 2004/04/16
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Tony Finch, 2004/04/19
    • Re: Rough consensus reached. Let's move on., Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/19
    • Re: User experience, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/10
• RE: User experience, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/06
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/07
  • Re: User experience, Hector Santos, 2004/04/07
    • Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/07
    • Re: User experience, Hector Santos, 2004/04/07
  • Multiple classes of mail, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Multiple classes of mail, Mark C. Langston, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Multiple classes of mail, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Multiple classes of mail, Edwin Aoki, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Multiple classes of mail, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/04/08
  • Re: User experience, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/07
    • Re: User experience, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/07
    • Re: User experience, wayne, 2004/04/07
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/07
  • Re: User experience, wayne, 2004/04/07
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/07
  • RE: User experience, Greg Connor, 2004/04/07
• RE: User experience, Harry Katz, 2004/04/08

Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/06

• Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/06
• Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Tony Hansen, 2004/04/06
• Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Hector Santos, 2004/04/06
  • Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Greg Connor, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Hector Santos, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/06
• Re: Problem, System complexity -> Solution complexity, Greg Connor, 2004/04/06

Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 2004/04/05

• Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 2004/04/06
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/06
• Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Doug Royer, 2004/04/09
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 2004/04/09
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/04/12
• Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 2004/04/25
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/25
• RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 2004/04/09
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, wayne, 2004/04/11
• RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/11
• RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Sauer, Damon, 2004/04/12
• RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 2004/04/12
  • Re: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/13
• RE: Microsoft submitting Caller ID as draft RFC, Harry Katz, 2004/04/26

planning for the interim meeting, Andrew Newton, 2004/04/05

• What we are trying to accomplish, John Leslie, 2004/04/05
  • Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Greg Connor, 2004/04/05
  • Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/06
    • Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Hector Santos, 2004/04/06
  • Re: What we are trying to accomplish, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/08

Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/04

• Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/04
  • Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/04
    • Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Greg Connor, 2004/04/04
    • Re: Choice of SMTP headers, Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/11

RE: Limited scope of work (04 APR milestone), Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/03

• Re: Limited scope of work (04 APR milestone), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/05

RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/02

• RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Pete Resnick, 2004/04/03
  • Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Philip Miller, 2004/04/03

Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/02

• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/02
  • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/02
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Mark C. Langston, 2004/04/02
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/03
• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, ned . freed, 2004/04/03
  • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/05
• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/03
• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/05
  • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Hector Santos, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/05
• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/05
  • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/07
• RE: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Sauer, Damon, 2004/04/06
• Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/07
  • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Benefits/costs of authorizing different identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/08

Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/01

• Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hector Santos, 2004/04/01
  • Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/02
• RE: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/02
  • Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference... (progress!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/04/02
• Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., David Mayne, 2004/04/05
  • Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference..., Hector Santos, 2004/04/05

Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/01

• Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/05
  • Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Philip Miller, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Philip Miller, 2004/04/05
    • Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, Mark C. Langston, 2004/04/05
• Re: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities, bz, 2004/04/06

RE: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 2004/04/01

• Re: Limited scope of work, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/01
• Re: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 2004/04/01
  • Message not available
    • Re: Limited scope of work, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/01
• RE: Limited scope of work, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/04/01
• RE: Limited scope of work, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/04/01
  • RE: Limited scope of work, Greg Connor, 2004/04/01
    • Re: Limited scope of work, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/01

Input on identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/03/31

• Re: Input on identities, Mark C. Langston, 2004/04/01
  • Re: Input on identities, Jon Kyme, 2004/04/01
  • Re: Input on identities - sorry, I'm stupid., Jon Kyme, 2004/04/01
• Changes required for HELO checking, John Leslie, 2004/04/01
  • Re: Changes required for HELO checking, Marshall Rose, 2004/04/01
• Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, John Leslie, 2004/04/01
  • Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Greg Connor, 2004/04/01
    • Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/01
  • Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/01
    • Re: Additional Changes for RFC2821 MAIL FROM checking, John Leslie, 2004/04/02
• Re: Input on identities, Aredridel, 2004/04/03
  • Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/03
    • Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 2004/04/03
    • ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 2004/04/03
    • Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/03
    • Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 2004/04/03
    • Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/03
    • Re: ISP Mail Hosts on Black Lists (was "Re: Input on identities"), Philip Miller, 2004/04/03
    • Re: Input on identities, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Input on identities, John Gardiner Myers, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Philip Miller, 2004/04/10
    • Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/10
    • Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/11
    • Re: Input on identities, Alan DeKok, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Greg Connor, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Input on identities, Hector Santos, 2004/04/06
    • Re: Input on identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Tony Hansen, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Pete Resnick, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/07
    • Message not available
    • Re: Input on identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/07
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Markus Stumpf, 2004/04/08
    • Re: Input on identities, Doug Royer, 2004/04/08
  • Re: Input on identities, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/04/03