CSV and STARTTLS, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/30

• Re: CSV and STARTTLS, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/30
• Re: CSV and STARTTLS, John Levine, 2004/06/30
  • Re: CSV and STARTTLS, Hector Santos, 2004/06/30
    • Re: CSV and STARTTLS, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/30
  • Re: CSV and STARTTLS, Claus Assmann, 2004/06/30
• CSV and STARTTLS, Roy Badami, 2004/06/30
  • Re: CSV and STARTTLS, John Levine, 2004/06/30

The problem with Unified SPF, Roy Badami, 2004/06/30

• The problem with Unified SPF, Roy Badami, 2004/06/30
• Re: The problem with Unified SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/30
  • Re: The problem with Unified SPF, Roy Badami, 2004/06/30
    • Re: The problem with Unified SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/30
    • Re: The problem with Unified SPF, wayne, 2004/06/30
  • Re: The problem with Unified SPF, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/30

Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/30

• Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, wayne, 2004/06/30
• Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/30
• Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Greg Connor, 2004/06/30
  • Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/30
• Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Hector Santos, 2004/06/30
• RE: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID, Olson, Margaret, 2004/06/30

DDoS attacks via SPF, wayne, 2004/06/29

• RE: DDoS attacks via SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/30

How fragile is SPF ?, John Levine, 2004/06/29

• Re: How fragile is SPF ?, wayne, 2004/06/29
  • adding overall timeouts, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29
• RE: How fragile is SPF ?, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/29
  • Re: How fragile is SPF ?, Hector Santos, 2004/06/29
  • Re: How fragile is SPF ?, wayne, 2004/06/29

RE: DDOS attacks, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/29

• RE: DDOS attacks, Roy Badami, 2004/06/29
  • Re: DDOS attacks, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29
• the hypothetical "spammers will forge TCP SMTP streams", Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29

Action items from June 28 jabber, John Leslie, 2004/06/29

• SPF vs CSV scenarios, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29
  • Re: SPF vs CSV scenarios, John Leslie, 2004/06/29
  • Re: SPF vs CSV scenarios, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/29
    • DDOS attacks, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29
• Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/29
  • Re: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Greg Connor, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV, Tony Finch, 2004/06/30
    • Sender ID and CSV are complimentary (long - sorry) (was: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV), Roy Badami, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Sender ID and CSV are complimentary (long - sorry) (was: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV), Andrew Newton, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Sender ID and CSV are complimentary (long - sorry) (was: Unified SPF overlaps with CSV), Tony Finch, 2004/06/30
• Re: Action items from June 28 jabber, Tony Finch, 2004/06/29
  • Re: Action items from June 28 jabber, Roy Badami, 2004/06/29

Problem scenarios for SPF vs CSV, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/28

• Re: Problem scenarios for SPF vs CSV, Hector Santos, 2004/06/29
  • Re: Problem scenarios for SPF vs CSV, Roy Badami, 2004/06/29

RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/28

• RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/28
• Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
• RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/28
  • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
  • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
• RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/28
  • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
    • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Greg Connor, 2004/06/28
    • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
    • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2004/06/29
  • RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/28
• Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/29
• Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/29
  • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Roy Badami, 2004/06/29
    • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/29
• RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/29
  • RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/29
• RE: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/29

Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Roy Badami, 2004/06/25

• Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Greg Connor, 2004/06/25
  • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Hector Santos, 2004/06/25
  • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Greg Connor, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Roy Badami, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Hector Santos, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/26
  • Re: Backward compatibility with deployed SPF records (and choice of domain), Roy Badami, 2004/06/26

consensus statement on record syntax and type, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/25

• Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, John Leslie, 2004/06/25
  • Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, Marshall Rose, 2004/06/25
• Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/25
• Request for clarification (was: consensus statement on record syntax and type), Roy Badami, 2004/06/25
  • Re: Request for clarification (was: consensus statement on record syntax and type), Andrew Newton, 2004/06/25
• Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/25
  • Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/25
    • Re: consensus statement on record syntax and type, Hector Santos, 2004/06/25

RE: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMA ark scopes, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/24

• RE: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMA ark scopes, John R Levine, 2004/06/24
  • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMA ark scopes, Rand Wacker, 2004/06/25
• Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMA ark scopes, Theo Schlossnagle, 2004/06/24

Sender identification is not the answer, David Wall, 2004/06/24

• Sender identification is not the answer, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
  • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, David Wall, 2004/06/24
• Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24
  • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, David Wall, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, David Wall, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Greg Connor, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Hector Santos, 2004/06/24
    • rejection after DATA, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: rejection after DATA, Hector Santos, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, David Wall, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Hector Santos, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Roy Badami, 2004/06/25
    • Re: moving the anonymous mail argument to ASRG, John Levine, 2004/06/24
    • Re: moving the anonymous mail argument to ASRG, David Wall, 2004/06/24
    • Re: moving the anonymous mail argument to ASRG, Greg Connor, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Mark C. Langston, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24
• RE: Sender identification is not the answer, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/24
• RE: Sender identification is not the answer, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/24
  • Violiates US ECPA: Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Hector Santos, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Violiates US ECPA: Re: Sender identification is not the answer, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/25
• RE: Sender identification is not the answer, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/25

Designing and Allocating a new RR type, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24

• Re: ASN.1 as encoding (was: Designing and Allocating a new RR type), Claus Assmann, 2004/06/24
• Re: Designing and Allocating a new RR type, wayne, 2004/06/24
• Re: Designing and Allocating a new RR type, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24
  • Re: Designing and Allocating a new RR type, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24
• Re: Designing and Allocating a new RR type, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/24
  • Re: Designing and Allocating a new RR type, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24

Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), wayne, 2004/06/24

• SPF Domain Lookup Analysis [was Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated)], Hector Santos, 2004/06/24

RE: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/23

• Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24
• Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24
• Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/24

draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/23

• draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Roy Badami, 2004/06/23
  • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Tony Finch, 2004/06/24
    • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • PRA and the dependancy on Resent-* headers., wayne, 2004/06/25
• Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Marshall Rose, 2004/06/23
• Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24
• RE: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/24
  • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
    • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Greg Connor, 2004/06/28
• RE: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/28
  • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
• RE: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/28
  • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
• RE: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/28
  • Re: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
• RE: draft-ietf-marid-submitter-01.txt, Harry Katz, 2004/06/29

extensibility as an attack vector, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/23

• using reputation lookups first, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/23
  • Re: using reputation lookups first, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23
    • Re: using reputation lookups first, Roy Badami, 2004/06/23
    • Unified SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Unified SPF, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23
    • what, precise, is SPF and what is not SPF?, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF, John Leslie, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: RPC factored lookups = DVP, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: RPC factored lookups = DVP, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/25
    • Re: Unified SPF: RPC factored lookups = DVP, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Unified SPF: RPC factored lookups = DVP, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/27
    • CSV details, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/25
    • Re: CSV details, John Leslie, 2004/06/25
    • Re: CSV details, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/25
    • Re: CSV details, John Leslie, 2004/06/25
    • Re: CSV details, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/25
    • CVS specifics: Accreditation, Hector Santos, 2004/06/25
    • Re: CVS specifics: Accreditation, John Leslie, 2004/06/26
    • Re: CVS specifics: Accreditation, Hector Santos, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAarkscopes, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAarkscopes, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAarkscopes, Roy Badami, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: CSV explained, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAarkscopes, Tony Finch, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: block versus factored records for HELO and MTAMAark scopes, John Levine, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF, John Leslie, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF, wayne, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF: scope macro to distinguish identities, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Unified SPF, william\(at\)elan.net, 2004/06/24
• Re: extensibility as an attack vector, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
  • Re: extensibility as an attack vector, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23

XML/SPF colaberation, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/23

• Re: XML/SPF colaberation, hadmut, 2004/06/23
  • Re: XML/SPF colaberation, Hector Santos, 2004/06/23
    • Re: XML/SPF colaberation, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/23
  • Re: XML/SPF colaberation, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/23
    • Re: XML/SPF colaberation, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
  • Re: XML/SPF colaberation, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/23

RE: Why not XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/23

• Re: Why not XML, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/23
  • Re: Why not XML, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/23
    • Re: out of line XML, was Why not XML, John Levine, 2004/06/23
    • Re: out of line XML, was Why not XML, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/23
    • Re: out of line XML, was Why not XML, John R Levine, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
• RE: Why not XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/23
  • RE: Why not XML, John R Levine, 2004/06/23
  • Re: Why not XML, Hector Santos, 2004/06/23
• RE: Why not XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/23

Why XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22

• Why XML, Roy Badami, 2004/06/22
  • RE: Why XML, terry, 2004/06/22
  • Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why XML, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/22
• Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
  • RE: Why XML, terry, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why XML, Sean Comeau, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why XML, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why XML, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/26
    • Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/27
    • Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/28
    • Re: Will SPF/Unified SPF/SenderID bring down the 'net?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/28
• Re: Why XML, Chris Zumbrunn, 2004/06/22
  • Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
• RE: Why XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22
• RE: Why XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22
  • RE: Why XML, Roy Badami, 2004/06/22
• RE: Why XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22
  • RE: Why XML, terry, 2004/06/22
  • Re: Why XML, Chris Zumbrunn, 2004/06/22
• Re: Why XML, scott, 2004/06/22
  • Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22

RE: Drive Towards Consensus, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22

• RE: Drive Towards Consensus, Greg Connor, 2004/06/22
• Why not XML, wayne, 2004/06/22
  • Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
    • RE: Why not XML, terry, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Why not XML, Greg Connor, 2004/06/22
    • Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Sean Comeau, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), hadmut, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Mark Lentczner, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Luis Bruno, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Sean Comeau, 2004/06/25
    • RE: Why not XML, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
    • TXT now, new RR later (was Re: Why not XML), Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/24
    • Re: TXT now, new RR later (was Re: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24
    • Re: TXT now, new RR later (was Re: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/24
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Mark Lentczner, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
    • STOP NOW! (was Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML)), Andrew Newton, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Greg Connor, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Emotions, Encoding, and Ignorance (Was: Why not XML), Greg Connor, 2004/06/23
    • Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Greg Connor, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Aredridel, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Robert Barclay, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Could binary encoding really be the answer?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/23
  • Re: Why not XML, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, John Levine, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Why not XML, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/23
• RE: FW: Drive Towards Consensus, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/22

RE: Factored lookup - ML patent claim issue., Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/21

• RE: Factored lookup - ML patent claim issue., Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/21
• RE: Factored lookup - ML patent claim issue., Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/21
  • Re: asymmetric routing, was Factored lookup - ML patent claim issue., John Levine, 2004/06/21

RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/21

• RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Roy Badami, 2004/06/21

RE: MARID Records and the standards process, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/20

• Re: MARID Records and the standards process, Hector Santos, 2004/06/20
• RE: MARID Records and the standards process, John R Levine, 2004/06/20
• RE: MARID Records and the standards process, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/21

RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/18

• Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Philip Miller, 2004/06/19
  • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Marshall Rose, 2004/06/19
• Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Sean Comeau, 2004/06/19
  • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Marshall Rose, 2004/06/19
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Mark Lentczner, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Margaret Olson, 2004/06/21
    • On Language, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/22
    • Re: On Language, Margaret Olson, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Greg Connor, 2004/06/21
    • RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/22
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Hector Santos, 2004/06/22
• Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 2004/06/21
• RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22
• RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Re cords], Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/22

RE: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Jim Lyon, 2004/06/18

• FW: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Jim Lyon, 2004/06/18
  • Re: FW: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Douglas Otis, 2004/06/18
  • Re: FW: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 2004/06/21
    • Re: FW: Drive Towards Consensus, Hector Santos, 2004/06/22
    • Re: FW: Drive Towards Consensus, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/22
    • Message not available
    • Message not available
    • Message not available
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus, Hector Santos, 2004/06/23
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 2004/06/23

[no subject], Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/18

• Factored lookup - ML patent claim issue., Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/19

RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/17

• RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, John R Levine, 2004/06/17
• Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Hector Santos, 2004/06/18
• Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/21
  • Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Hector Santos, 2004/06/21
• RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/18
  • Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, wayne, 2004/06/18
    • Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/18
  • RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Roy Badami, 2004/06/18
    • RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Aredridel, 2004/06/18
    • Re: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Philip Miller, 2004/06/19
  • RE: MARID Records and the standards process, John R Levine, 2004/06/19
    • Re: MARID Records and the standards process, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/19
    • Re: MARID Records and the standards process, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/20
• RE: Against Extensibility in MARID Records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/18

Its the XML infoset that is key RE: Working toward unity on XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/16

• Re: Its the XML infoset that is key RE: Working toward unity on XML, wayne, 2004/06/16

On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/16

• Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jonathan Gardner, 2004/06/16
• Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/16
• Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
• RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/16
  • Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/16
• Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Greg Connor, 2004/06/16
  • Against Extensibility in MARID Records, John T Levine, 2004/06/17
• The vast world of XML (Was: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/06/17
• RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/16
  • Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Marshall Rose, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Marshall Rose, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Margaret Olson, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Jonathan Gardner, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Luis Bruno, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Hector Santos, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Margaret Olson, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Roy Badami, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Ted Hardie, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus [was Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records], Andrew Newton, 2004/06/21
    • Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 2004/06/21
• RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/16
  • Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, wayne, 2004/06/17
• RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/17
  • Re: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Carl Hutzler, 2004/06/17
  • RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/17
• RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/18
  • RE: On Extensibility in MARID Records, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/18

Working toward unity on XML, Greg Connor, 2004/06/15

• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/15
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, wayne, 2004/06/16
  • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Margaret Olson, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Sam Silberman, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/16
  • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/16
  • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Greg Connor, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Margaret Olson, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Sean Comeau, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Hector Santos, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Chris Zumbrunn, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Jonathan Gardner, 2004/06/16
• Re: Working toward unity on XML, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/19
• RE: Working toward unity on XML, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/15
  • Re: Working toward unity on XML, Margaret Olson, 2004/06/16

OT: do-not-spam list, Michel Py, 2004/06/15

• Re: OT: do-not-spam list, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/15

XML exploits, wayne, 2004/06/15

• Re: XML exploits, Marshall Rose, 2004/06/15
  • Re: XML exploits, wayne, 2004/06/16
  • RE: XML exploits, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/16

rough consensus and working code, wayne, 2004/06/15

• Re: rough consensus and working code, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/15
  • Re: rough consensus and working code, John Levine, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, John Levine, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/16
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, Rand Wacker, 2004/06/15
  • Re: rough consensus and working code, wayne, 2004/06/15
    • Re: rough consensus and working code, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/15
• Re: rough consensus and working code, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/20
• RE: rough consensus and working code, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
• RE: rough consensus and working code, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/20
  • Re: rough consensus and working code, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/21

SPF and SenderID /MARID comparisons, Olson, Margaret, 2004/06/15

• Re: SPF and SenderID /MARID comparisons, wayne, 2004/06/15
• RE: SPF and SenderID /MARID comparisons, Olson, Margaret, 2004/06/15

CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/14

• Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie, 2004/06/14
  • Re: CSV specification revision available, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/15
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie, 2004/06/15
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/15
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie, 2004/06/16
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/18
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/18
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami, 2004/06/19
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/19
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/19
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Roy Badami, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV (NBB, SPF incorporation of HELO check), Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV (NBB, SPF incorporation of HELO check), Roy Badami, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV, NBB, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/24
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie, 2004/06/19
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/20
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch, 2004/06/21
• Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch, 2004/06/15
  • Re: CSV specification revision available, John Leslie, 2004/06/15
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch, 2004/06/15
  • Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/15
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch, 2004/06/16
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/17
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Tony Finch, 2004/06/17
    • Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/17
  • Re: CSV specification revision available, Dave Crocker, 2004/06/15

Why should I link a library thats larger than my ENTIRE MTA?, James Couzens, 2004/06/14

• Re: Why should I link a library thats larger than my ENTIRE MTA?, Aredridel, 2004/06/14
  • Re: Why should I link a library thats larger than my ENTIRE MTA?, James Couzens, 2004/06/14
• Re: Why should I link a library thats larger than my ENTIRE MTA?, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/14
• RE: Why should I link a library thats larger than my ENTIRE MTA?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/14

comments on SPF, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14

• Re: comments on SPF, wayne, 2004/06/14
  • Re: comments on SPF, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14
    • Re: comments on SPF, wayne, 2004/06/14
    • Re: comments on SPF, Aredridel, 2004/06/14
    • Re: comments on SPF, Greg Connor, 2004/06/14
    • Re: comments on SPF, Aredridel, 2004/06/14
    • Re: comments on SPF, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/15

topic for monday's chat, Marshall Rose, 2004/06/13

• RE: topic for monday's chat, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/14

Ancient history (draft-ietf-marid-core-00), Greg Connor, 2004/06/13

• Re: Ancient history (draft-ietf-marid-core-00), Alan DeKok, 2004/06/14
  • Re: Ancient history (draft-ietf-marid-core-00), Jon Kyme, 2004/06/14
• RE: Ancient history (draft-ietf-marid-core-00), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/14

RE: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/13

• RE: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/13

RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/11

• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Michel Py, 2004/06/12
  • RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, wayne, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/14
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/14
• Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/06/15
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/17
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/17
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/17
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/17
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Greg Connor, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/17
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/17
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/16
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/16
  • RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Aredridel, 2004/06/16
  • RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/16
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/16
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/16
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/17
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/17
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/17
  • RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/17
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/18
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/18
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/18
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/18
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/18
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Bill Mcinnis, 2004/06/18

[RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/11

• Re: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
• Re: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/11
• RE: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
• [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Rich Rosenbaum, 2004/06/12
• RE: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/12
• RE: [RFC 1464?] RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments ondraft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Rich Rosenbaum, 2004/06/13

Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/10

• Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/11
• Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/11
• Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
  • RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/11
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hector Santos, 2004/06/12
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, wayne, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/14
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/11
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, wayne, 2004/06/11
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/15
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/11
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/11
    • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14
  • Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14
• RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, MW Mike Weiner \(5028\), 2004/06/14

RE: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/10

• Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Claus Assmann, 2004/06/10
• Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), wayne, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/14
    • Humming at the Interim (Was: MTAmark), wayne, 2004/06/15
• Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/11
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Claus Assmann, 2004/06/11
• Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/11
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/11
• RE: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/14
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/14
• RE: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/14
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/15

MARID charter and using 2822 data, wayne, 2004/06/10

• Re: MARID charter and using 2822 data, Marshall Rose, 2004/06/11
  • Re: MARID charter and using 2822 data, Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/12
• RE: MARID charter and using 2822 data, Mark Joseph, 2004/06/13
  • Re: header rewriting, was MARID charter and using 2822 data, John Levine, 2004/06/13
    • Re: header rewriting, was MARID charter and using 2822 data, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/14

suggested path and arch, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/10

• RE: suggested path and arch, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/10
  • Re: suggested path and arch, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/10
  • Re: suggested path and arch, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/11
• RE: suggested path and arch, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/10
  • Re: suggested path and arch, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/10
• RE: suggested path and arch, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/10
• RE: suggested path and arch, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/10
  • RE: suggested path and arch, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/11
    • Re: suggested path and arch, John Levine, 2004/06/11

non-TXT RR: reuse MB/MD/MF/MG/MR?, wayne, 2004/06/10

• Re: non-TXT RR: reuse MB/MD/MF/MG/MR?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/10
  • Re: non-TXT RR: reuse MB/MD/MF/MG/MR?, wayne, 2004/06/10

Reality check please, Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/09

• Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Claus Assmann, 2004/06/10
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hector Santos, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hector Santos, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/14
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Hector Santos, 2004/06/15
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Jon Kyme, 2004/06/12
  • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Markus Stumpf, 2004/06/11
    • Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please), Peter Koch, 2004/06/16
• Message not available
  • Re: Reality check please, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Reality check please, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/14
    • Re: Reality check please, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/15
• Message not available
  • Message not available
    • Re: Reality check please (You set me up! Thanks!), Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/15
• RE: Reality check please, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/09
• RE: Reality check please, G. Waleed Kavalec, 2004/06/10
  • Re: Reality check please, wayne, 2004/06/10
    • Re: Reality check please, Hector Santos, 2004/06/10

Towards resolution on Wildcards, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/09

• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, wayne, 2004/06/09
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/09
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Greg Connor, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/06/09
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, John Levine, 2004/06/09
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Greg Connor, 2004/06/09
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/10
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, ned . freed, 2004/06/10
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/10
    • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, wayne, 2004/06/10
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Hector Santos, 2004/06/10
• Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Olson, Margaret, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/09
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/09
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/10
    • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, wayne, 2004/06/10
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/09
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, John Thielens, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/09
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/10
  • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/12
    • Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/14
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/09
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Michel Py, 2004/06/10
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/06/10
• RE: Towards resolution on Wildcards, Michel Py, 2004/06/12

Revised Draft Minutes of the MARID Interim Meeting, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/09

• Re: Revised Draft Minutes of the MARID Interim Meeting, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/09

Planning ahead: RFC schedule, wayne, 2004/06/07

• Re: Planning ahead: RFC schedule, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/07
  • Re: Planning ahead: IETF meeting, John Levine, 2004/06/08

Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/03

• Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, wayne, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, wayne, 2004/06/04
• Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/04
• RE: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Nate Leon, 2004/06/03
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Patrik Fältström, 2004/06/03
• RE: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Joshua Baer, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, Olson, Margaret, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Using MX as the pointer to the other RR, John Levine, 2004/06/05

Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/02

• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/03
  • RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Ryan Ordway, 2004/06/03
  • RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/03
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/03
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/03
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, wayne, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/03
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Andrew Newton, 2004/06/03
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michael Mealling, 2004/06/04
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/04
• Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/04
• Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, wayne, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hector Santos, 2004/06/04
  • RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/04
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/08
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/04
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/08
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Clifford Hammerschmidt, 2004/06/08
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, wayne, 2004/06/08
  • RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Greg Connor, 2004/06/13
    • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Hector Santos, 2004/06/13
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/08
  • Re: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Clifford Hammerschmidt, 2004/06/08
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/08
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Ted Hardie, 2004/06/09
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/10
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Jim Lyon, 2004/06/10
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/10
• RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Michel Py, 2004/06/10
  • RE: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use, Douglas Otis, 2004/06/10

comment on draft-ietf-marid-core-00: PRA algorithm (long), Roy Badami, 2004/06/02

• RE: comment on draft-ietf-marid-core-00: PRA algorithm (long), Jim Lyon, 2004/06/02

CID sizes, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/01

• Re: CID sizes, william(at)elan.net, 2004/06/02
• Re: CID sizes, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/03
  • Re: CID sizes, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/03
    • Re: CID sizes, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/03
    • Re: CID sizes, Alan DeKok, 2004/06/03
  • Re: CID sizes, Greg Connor, 2004/06/03
    • Re: CID sizes, Eric A. Hall, 2004/06/03
    • Re: CID sizes, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/08

RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/01

• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/01
  • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/01
  • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Greg Connor, 2004/06/01
    • Re: Wide-Open MADRID, Matthew Elvey, 2004/06/04
    • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/08
    • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Greg Connor, 2004/06/08
    • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Edward Lewis, 2004/06/08
  • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/02
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Bob Atkinson, 2004/06/01
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/02
  • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/02
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/02
  • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Guðbjörn S. Hreinsson, 2004/06/02
    • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Jon Kyme, 2004/06/02
    • RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Guðbjörn S. Hreinsson, 2004/06/02
    • Re: Wide-Open MADRID, Luis Bruno, 2004/06/02
• RE: Wide-Open MADRID, Sauer, Damon, 2004/06/08