IETF MARID (date)

IETF MARID (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

August 31, 2004

Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Dean Anderson, 21:13
How is a mail domain like an insurance company?, Douglas Otis, 19:43
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Roy Badami, 18:57
Re: Unencumbered Checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 17:41
RE: Unencumbered Checking, terry, 17:35
RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 16:50
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 16:29
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for PRA, Hadmut Danisch, 15:50
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Hadmut Danisch, 15:40
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 15:26
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), william(at)elan.net, 14:52
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID supportin Courier), william(at)elan.net, 14:19
Re: Unencumbered Checking, Markus Stumpf, 14:15
Re: Unencumbered Checking, Yakov Shafranovich, 13:51
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Mark Lentczner, 13:49
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 13:48
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Mark Lentczner, 13:29
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for PRA, Cyrus Daboo, 13:23
Re: Unencumbered Checking, Graham Murray, 13:01
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), jpinkerton, 12:39
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Graham Murray, 12:36
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 12:33
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harold A'Hole, 12:28
Re: Unencumbered Checking, Graham Murray, 12:19
Re: Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, mazieres, 11:59
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Ted Hardie, 11:55
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 11:41
RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Ryan Malayter, 11:34
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID supportin Courier), Yakov Shafranovich, 11:33
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSN attacks, Carl S. Gutekunst, 11:28
RE: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID supportin Courier), terry, 11:28
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11:28
RE: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Ryan Malayter, 11:27
Re: DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:04
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:00
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Markus Stumpf, 11:00
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Yakov Shafranovich, 10:58
DEPLOY: Prior Art for PRA, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:57
RE: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Douglas Otis, 10:55
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSNattacks, terry, 09:56
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Paul Iadonisi, 09:51
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSN attacks, Daryl Odnert, 09:48
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Yakov Shafranovich, 09:27
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 09:25
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Markus Stumpf, 09:22
DEPLOY: Prior Art for Sender-ID (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 08:53
DOC-BUG: Acknowledgements, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:51
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Markus Stumpf, 08:45
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Markus Stumpf, 08:39
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), wayne, 08:30
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:27
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harold A'Hole, 08:25
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 04:28
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Mark Shewmaker, 02:37
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSN attack s, Chris Haynes, 02:05
TECH-OMISSION: Testing following SMTP message acceptance, Chris Haynes, 01:23

August 30, 2004

Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Rand Wacker, 23:55
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Greg Connor, 22:42
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 22:38
RE: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Harry Katz, 22:12
Re: Re: Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, mazieres, 21:49
Re: Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Mark Shewmaker, 20:36
Re: In favour of Sender ID, David H. Lynch Jr., 20:24
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), David H. Lynch Jr., 20:01
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Dean Anderson, 19:20
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 19:06
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Douglas Otis, 18:32
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Paul Iadonisi, 18:20
RE: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Harry Katz, 17:56
Re: Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, mazieres, 17:35
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Roy Badami, 17:07
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Roy Badami, 16:54
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSN attack s, Daryl Odnert, 16:03
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Mark Shewmaker, 15:49
RE: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Daryl Odnert, 15:16
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Douglas Otis, 14:27
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Security considerations and limit scope, mazieres, 13:51
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 13:14
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, John Leslie, 13:13
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Divergent assumptions about objectives, Chris Haynes, 12:35
Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Daniel Quinlan, 12:13
TECH-OMISSION: Security considerations and limit scope, Douglas Otis, 11:59
RE: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Harry Katz, 11:43
Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:04
Re: FW: on the topic of IPR, Douglas Otis, 10:16
Re: More on Exim, GPL and the IPR license, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 09:31
Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Andrew Newton, 09:21
[DEPLOY] Exim and Sender-id, Philip Hazel, 09:15
RE: More on Exim, GPL and the IPR license, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:02
More on Exim, GPL and the IPR license, Peuhkurinen, Kevin, 07:22
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Divergent assumptions about objectives, Chris Haynes, 02:58
Re: Why sublicensing is important, Chris Haynes, 01:14
TECH-OMISSION: Security vulnerability - Malicious DSN attacks, Chris Haynes, 00:25
RE: Why sublicensing is important, Sauer, Damon, 00:00

August 29, 2004

RE: Why sublicensing is important, John Glube, 23:48
RE: Why sublicensing is important, John Glube, 23:24
Re: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., David H. Lynch Jr., 23:01
DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 16:34
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, mazieres, 15:22
Re: Why sublicensing is important, John R Levine, 12:34
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Dave Crocker, 12:09
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Dave Crocker, 11:57
Re: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., william(at)elan.net, 09:39
Re: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., Harold A'Hole, 08:52
RE: Why sublicensing is important, John Glube, 07:17
RE: In favour of Sender ID, Sauer, Damon, 07:09
Re: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., Hadmut Danisch, 06:50
Re: Why sublicensing is important, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 03:36
Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., Nick Shelness, 03:28
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 00:22

August 28, 2004

Re: Why sublicensing is important, Yakov Shafranovich, 21:01
RE: Why sublicensing is important, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:38
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Ólafur Guðmundsson, 19:55
Re: on the topic of IPR, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:14
Re: In favour of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 19:01
Re: on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 19:00
Re: Why sublicensing is important, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:54
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Douglas Otis, 18:32
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Andrew Newton, 18:26
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, Andrew Newton, 18:17
Why sublicensing is important, Roy Badami, 16:07
Re: Why sublicensing is important, Koen Martens, 15:33
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Paul Iadonisi, 14:21
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Mark Lentczner, 13:14
Re: DEPLOY: Sender ID license is acceptable, Alan Hodgson, 12:51
Re: In favour of Sender ID, Graham Murray, 12:35
RE: Why sublicensing is important, John Glube, 12:19
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Paul Iadonisi, 12:11
RE: Why sublicensing is important, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:36
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Dave Crocker, 11:35
In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Roy Badami, 11:21
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:06
Why sublicensing is important, John Levine, 10:05
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Dave Crocker, 08:32
Re: TECH-ERROR: Misuse of DNS Records, Douglas Otis, 07:51
Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Meng Weng Wong, 07:01
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Douglas Otis, 06:12
Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Roy Badami, 06:03
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 05:48
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, terry, 05:16
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 04:56
Re: DEPLOY: Sender ID license is acceptable, Roy Badami, 04:50
Re: on the topic of IPR, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 04:46
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Douglas Otis, 04:44
Re: on the topic of IPR, Greg Connor, 01:18

August 27, 2004

Re: on the topic of IPR, David H. Lynch Jr., 23:38
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 23:24
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, David H. Lynch Jr., 23:23
Re: DEPLOY: Sender ID license is acceptable, David H. Lynch Jr., 23:02
Re: on the topic of IPR, David H. Lynch Jr., 22:40
Re: on the topic of IPR, David H. Lynch Jr., 22:05
Re: on the topic of IPR, David H. Lynch Jr., 21:54
Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Graham Murray, 21:50
Re: on the topic of IPR, Markus Stumpf, 20:11
RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, william(at)elan.net, 19:26
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, David Blacka, 19:07
Re: DEPLOY: Sender ID license is acceptable, Paul Iadonisi, 18:59
RE: on the topic of IPR, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:27
DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Roy Badami, 18:06
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Douglas Otis, 18:03
DEPLOY: Sender ID license is acceptable, Roy Badami, 17:53
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Mark C. Langston, 17:09
DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Sam Varshavchik, 17:01
Re: Reputation services for SenderID, Jim Fenton, 16:43
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Mark Shewmaker, 16:43
RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 16:18
Reputation services for SenderID, John Leslie, 16:15
Re: TECH-ERROR: Duplication of version number as part of the name for SPF2 dns record (this is possibly TECH-OMISSION), Roy Badami, 16:13
RE: DOC-BUG (possibly TECH-OMISSION): ietf-marid-core section 5, Jim Lyon, 15:39
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 15:26
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, David Blacka, 15:10
Re: TECH-ERROR: Duplication of version number as part of the name for SPF2 dns record (this is possibly TECH-OMISSION), william(at)elan.net, 15:05
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Jim Lyon, 14:52
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces fromforgedmessages, Jim Lyon, 14:48
Re: DOC-BUG: section 2.1 of marid-protocol-02, Mark Lentczner, 14:33
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Jim Lyon, 14:31
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Jim Lyon, 14:21
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Paul Iadonisi, 13:56
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Mattias Webjörn Eriksson, 13:54
Re: TECH-ERROR: Misuse of DNS Records, Mark Lentczner, 13:43
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, Paul Iadonisi, 13:30
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Paul Iadonisi, 13:21
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, Andrew Newton, 13:17
Re: on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 13:08
Re: on the topic of IPR, George Mitchell, 13:06
RE: on the topic of IPR, Scott Kitterman, 13:05
Re: Problematic issues with regard to last call, George Mitchell, 13:01
Re: TECH-ERROR: Duplication of version number as part of the name for SPF2 dns record (this is possibly TECH-OMISSION), Rand Wacker, 12:07
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Rand Wacker, 12:05
Re: on the topic of IPR, Paul Iadonisi, 11:32
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 11:27
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Ryan Ordway, 11:26
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 11:12
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 11:10
Re: on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 11:07
TECH-ERROR: Misuse of DNS Records, Douglas Otis, 11:06
Re: on the topic of IPR, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:01
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Margaret Olson, 10:42
Re: on the topic of IPR, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 10:29
Re: on the topic of IPR, Paul Iadonisi, 10:18
Re: on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 10:17
Exim, GPL, and IPR, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 10:05
FW: on the topic of IPR, Michael R. Brumm, 09:27
TECH ERROR: ietf-marid-core - problems with MUA determenining PRA, william(at)elan.net, 09:19
Re: on the topic of IPR, kent crispin, 08:54
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Michael R. Brumm, 08:42
Re: on the topic of IPR, Dave Crocker, 08:11
Re: on the topic of IPR, Markus Stumpf, 07:51
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Divergent assumptions about objectives, Markus Stumpf, 07:45
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), David Blacka, 07:08
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 06:56
Re: on the topic of IPR, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 06:55
RE: on the topic of IPR, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:52
Re: on the topic of IPR, Yakov Shafranovich, 06:43
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), David Blacka, 06:17
Re: on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 05:53
Re: on the topic of IPR, Michel Bouissou, 05:22
Re: on the topic of IPR, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 05:01
Re: TECH-OMISSION: Divergent assumptions about objectives, Andrew Newton, 05:00
Re: on the topic of IPR, Mark, 04:37
TECH-OMISSION: Need to invoke 'deliver-or-report' obligation, Chris Haynes, 04:12
on the topic of IPR, Andrew Newton, 03:48
Problematic issues with regard to last call, Andrew Newton, 03:44
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Graham Murray, 02:47
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Matt Sergeant, 02:24
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Tripp Cox, 01:46
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 00:34
DOC-BUG (possibly TECH-OMISSION): ietf-marid-core section 5, william(at)elan.net, 00:11

August 26, 2004

RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), John Glube, 23:44
DOC-BUG: section 2.1 of marid-protocol-02, william(at)elan.net, 22:10
TECH-OMISSION: Divergent assumptions about objectives, Chris Haynes, 20:30
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Mark Lentczner, 20:20
message-based vs. channel-based, Dave Crocker, 20:09
DEPLOY/IPR: Implications of MS license for academia, mazieres, 20:04
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 19:03
TECH-ERROR: Duplication of version number as part of the name for SPF2 dns record (this is possibly TECH-OMISSION), william(at)elan.net, 18:46
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, wayne, 18:38
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, william(at)elan.net, 18:05
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, John Glube, 17:29
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Douglas Otis, 17:06
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Frank Ellermann, 17:03
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 16:55
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forgedmessages, mazieres, 16:20
RE: TECH-OMISSION: Legal liability for creating bounces from forgedmessages, Mark Shewmaker, 16:18
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Dave Crocker, 16:10
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 16:10
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 15:59
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Jim Lyon, 15:56
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Ryan Malayter, 15:51
RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 15:39
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 15:00
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Mark Shewmaker, 14:54
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Mark, 14:43
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jim Lyon, 14:35
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forgedmessages, Jim Lyon, 14:25
RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 14:18
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Mark Lentczner, 14:13
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jeff Macdonald, 14:06
RE: DEPLOY: Misuse of Resent-From, Jim Lyon, 13:58
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Douglas Otis, 13:35
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 13:27
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Jeff Macdonald, 13:25
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 13:19
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 13:14
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 13:12
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Rand Wacker, 12:49
Re: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license? (typo fixed), Yakov Shafranovich, 11:38
Re: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:35
RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Ryan Ordway, 11:32
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Dave Crocker, 11:28
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Jim Lyon, 11:27
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Ryan Malayter, 11:24
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Ryan Ordway, 11:14
RE: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Jim Lyon, 11:12
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, terry, 11:08
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:05
RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 11:02
RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:59
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Mark, 10:55
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), John Glube, 10:33
RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Ryan Ordway, 10:33
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, wayne, 10:26
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jeff Macdonald, 10:06
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:48
Re: DEPLOY: IPR/GPL, wayne, 09:40
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Rand Wacker, 09:17
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), David Blacka, 09:00
MAIL LOOP AND DUPLICATION OF POSTS, william(at)elan.net, 08:58
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), Rand Wacker, 08:56
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 08:48
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Rand Wacker, 08:34
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 08:28
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 08:24
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 08:21
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), william(at)elan.net, 08:15
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?), Andrew Newton, 08:13
DEPLOY: IPR/GPL, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:11
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:10
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:49
AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Carl Hutzler, 07:46
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:33
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Yakov Shafranovich, 07:32
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), David Blacka, 07:19
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 07:09
RE: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on t he SenderID license?), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:06
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Mark, 07:00
Re: acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?), Yakov Shafranovich, 06:54
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:42
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Meng Weng Wong, 06:40
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Margaret Olson, 06:38
RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:18
acceptable licenses (Was: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?), wayne, 05:55
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, wayne, 05:27
RE: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, terry, 05:18
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jim Fenton, 05:12
RE: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, terry, 05:03
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:12
DEPLOY: PRA Identity Untrustworthy, Douglas Otis, 03:22
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Mark, 02:55
Re: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Mark, 02:33
DEPLOY: why I don't want Sender-ID as it is (IPR claims), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:28
Re: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:09
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:39
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Koen Martens, 01:24
Re: DEPLOY: Santronics position on Sender Id, Hector Santos, 01:21
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:18
RE: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), John Glube, 00:43

August 25, 2004

RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, George Mitchell, 21:51
Re: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Waitman C Gobble II, 20:59
RE: Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:56
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:46
DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Rand Wacker, 20:44
Can there be an early decision on the SenderID license?, wayne, 19:00
DEPLOY: IPR License and Custom Software Development, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:59
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, wayne, 18:49
Re: [marid] Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Benjamin Damm, 18:38
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Daniel Quinlan, 18:02
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements - licese terms are a blow to IETF process, Mattias Webjörn Eriksson, 16:35
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Chuck Mead, 16:28
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements - licese terms are a blow to IETF process, william(at)elan.net, 15:36
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Mark C. Langston, 15:26
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Ted Hardie, 15:04
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Mark C. Langston, 14:30
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Koen Martens, 14:06
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Koen Martens, 13:25
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Graham Murray, 13:20
DEPLOY: Misuse of Resent-From, Douglas Otis, 13:12
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Chip Mefford, 12:41
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Harry Katz, 12:19
Re: DEPLOY - reference implementation, Chuck Mead, 12:18
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, George Mitchell, 12:15
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Daniel Quinlan, 11:52
DEPLOY - reference implementation, Nate Leon, 11:40
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Chuck Mead, 11:14
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Ryan Ordway, 10:35
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jeff Macdonald, 10:22
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Mark Shewmaker, 07:22
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, John Glube, 07:18
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Andrew Newton, 07:11
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Chip Mefford, 06:41
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, wayne, 06:30
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Mark, 05:58
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:24
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Graham Murray, 04:49
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:53
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:47
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:32
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:17
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:12
Microsoft (lack of) replies (Was: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:09
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 02:31
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 02:09
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:05
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Mark, 01:09
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Roy Arends, 00:42

August 24, 2004

TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, John Glube, 22:51
DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. DOC-BUG too., Matthew Elvey, 20:06
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Mark C. Langston, 18:45
Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Paul Iadonisi, 18:35
DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It, Gordon Fecyk, 17:52
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Margaret Olson, 17:47
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, terry, 17:41
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:21
DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs, Paul Iadonisi, 17:18
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:58
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 16:32
RE: DEPLOY: Creating bounces from forged messages, Douglas Otis, 16:15
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Mark Shewmaker, 15:48
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Mark Shewmaker, 15:47
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Douglas Otis, 15:36
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, John Glube, 15:29
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 15:07
RE: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Harry Katz, 15:05
RE: DEPLOY: Creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 14:54
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 14:44
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Chip Mefford, 14:40
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 14:34
DEPLOY: Creating bounces from forged messages, Douglas Otis, 14:16
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Graham Murray, 14:07
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, George Mitchell, 14:05
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 14:01
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, John Glube, 14:00
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged mess ages, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:58
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Mark Lentczner, 13:55
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Mark Lentczner, 13:50
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Eric Allman, 13:48
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Chip Mefford, 13:47
Re: DOC-BUG: two IPv6 problems in -protocol, Mark Lentczner, 13:24
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, terry, 13:22
Re: DOC-BUG: typo in -protocol, Mark Lentczner, 13:20
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 13:08
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 12:59
DEPLOY: spam problem solved, addressed, or ???, Alan DeKok, 12:58
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Koen Martens, 12:46
DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Margaret Olson, 12:40
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Mark C. Langston, 12:39
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Andrew Newton, 12:35
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, terry, 12:30
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Mark C. Langston, 12:21
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Graham Murray, 12:20
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Koen Martens, 12:15
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 12:05
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Ryan Ordway, 12:01
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Harry Katz, 11:55
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Jim Lyon, 11:54
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, wayne, 11:53
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged mess ages, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:46
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:22
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 11:19
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged mess ages, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:19
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, terry, 11:07
Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Andrew Newton, 11:05
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 10:59
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:43
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged mess ages, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:39
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Andrew Newton, 10:33
Re: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 10:30
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Mark C. Langston, 10:26
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Eric Allman, 10:25
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 10:20
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, terry, 10:11
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, terry, 10:07
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Harry Katz, 09:55
RE: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, terry, 09:54
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, gmc, 09:52
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, terry, 09:43
RE: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:26
RE: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged mess ages, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:22
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Ted Hardie, 08:58
Re: TECH-OMISSION: failure action is too restrictive in -core, Steven G. Willis, 08:07
DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Graham Murray, 07:35
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:32
DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Chris Haynes, 07:04
Re: Deadline for IPR filings, Marshall Rose, 06:59
DOC-BUG: two IPv6 problems in -protocol, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:54
DOC-BUG: typo in -protocol, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:41
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Michel Bouissou, 05:21
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Margaret Olson, 04:37
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Mark Shewmaker, 04:01
DEPLOY: Sending of malicious 'bounce' messages to innocent victims, Chris Haynes, 01:53
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Michel Bouissou, 01:44
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:11
Re: [DEPLOY] Privacy and disclosure of addresses in -core, Michel Bouissou, 00:52
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Michel Bouissou, 00:42
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Roy Arends, 00:36
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:16
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:10
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:08

August 23, 2004

IDN and Sender-ID (Was: some other questions/comments, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:48
Re: TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:43
Re: TECH-OMISSION: billing.victim.com is possible, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:38
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Mark Lentczner, 22:25
DEPLOY: Sendmail position on Sender Id, Eric Allman, 19:39
RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Gordon Fecyk, 19:35
Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 19:24
DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Harry Katz, 19:01
DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ, Harry Katz, 19:00
DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License, Harry Katz, 19:00
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, william(at)elan.net, 18:06
Re: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, ned . freed, 18:03
TECH-ERROR: DNS Server Requirements, Jim Lyon, 17:09
TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 17:08
some other questions/comments, Daniel Quinlan, 16:53
RE: TECH-OMISSION: failure action is too restrictive in -core, Jim Lyon, 16:51
DOC-BUG: PTR mention needed in 6.2 in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:43
DEPLOY: processing limits are way too high in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:42
DOC-BUG: include: would be clearer with examples in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:40
TECH-ERROR: PTR should not be recommended against in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:37
DOC-BUG: an example for "neutral" would be good in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:36
TECH-OMISSION: billing.victim.com is possible, Daniel Quinlan, 16:35
DEPLOY: TXT vs. SPF2 queries in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:30
TECH-OMISSION: "/pra" should not be hard-coded in -protocol, Daniel Quinlan, 16:23
DOC-BUG: documentation bugs in -core, Daniel Quinlan, 16:19
TECH-OMISSION: failure action is too restrictive in -core, Daniel Quinlan, 16:14
TECH-OMISSION: leave open other authentication methods in -core, Daniel Quinlan, 16:11
Re: Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents, Andrew Newton, 13:19
Re: Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents, Daniel Quinlan, 13:16
[DEPLOY] Privacy and disclosure of addresses in -core, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 12:50
Deadline for IPR filings, John Glube, 12:07
Re: Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents, Andrew Newton, 10:40
China ISC anti-spam California meeting report, Dave Crocker, 10:38
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 10:35
Re: Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents, John Leslie, 10:24
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Douglas Otis, 09:40
Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents, Andrew Newton, 07:53
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 07:35

August 22, 2004

RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Jim Fenton, 22:02
Re: SPF is not an antispam technology, Douglas Otis, 14:10
Re: SPF is not an antispam technology, Douglas Otis, 14:08
Re: SPF is not an antispam technology, Dean Anderson, 13:32
Re: SPF is not an antispam technology, william(at)elan.net, 12:38
Re: SPF is not an antispam technology, Dean Anderson, 12:13

August 21, 2004

SPF is not an antispam technology, Meng Weng Wong, 17:36
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter (fwd), Dean Anderson, 16:50
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, John Glube, 07:43

August 20, 2004

Allowing other scopes on SPF2 records (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt), Roy Badami, 20:21
Re: change of version string, Roy Badami, 20:06
Back-Door Bounce strategy prevention, Douglas Otis, 16:20
blowback and SPF classic, Meng Weng Wong, 13:54
Re: Allowing other scopes on SPF2 records (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt), Douglas Otis, 12:38
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 12:23
RE: change of version string, Scott Kitterman, 12:08
RE: change of version string, Douglas Otis, 11:37
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 10:26
Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 10:09
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 10:01
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Frank Ellermann, 09:40
Re: Allowing other scopes on SPF2 records, Frank Ellermann, 08:57
Re: Allowing other scopes on SPF2 records (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt), Tripp Cox, 08:53
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, John Glube, 07:18
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Graham Murray, 06:11
Allowing other scopes on SPF2 records (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt), wayne, 05:48

August 19, 2004

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt, Tripp Cox, 22:42
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Dean Anderson, 21:47
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Dean Anderson, 21:33
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt, wayne, 21:15
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, wayne, 21:15
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 19:47
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 19:05
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Douglas Otis, 18:51
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, terry, 18:46
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 18:17
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, terry, 17:56
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 17:41
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, terry, 17:28
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Roy Badami, 16:56
RE: change of version string, Scott Kitterman, 14:57
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 14:35
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Dean Anderson, 14:27
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 13:57
RE: change of version string, Douglas Otis, 13:57
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Daryl Odnert, 13:18
RE: change of version string, Scott Kitterman, 13:17
RE: change of version string, Douglas Otis, 12:53
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 12:39
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, John Glube, 12:31
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Harry Katz, 11:29
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Roy Badami, 11:08
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:08
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 11:04
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 10:33
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt, Hadmut Danisch, 10:02
RE: change of version string, Scott Kitterman, 09:32
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Mark Baugher, 09:20
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Daryl Odnert, 09:12
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Andrew Newton, 09:06
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Chris Haynes, 09:01
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Dean Anderson, 08:31
Re: IP Address spoofing, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 08:14
Re: IP Address spoofing, Dean Anderson, 08:07
Re: There can be more than one, Andrew Newton, 08:06
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 07:58
Re: Sender-ID and last hop validation, Alan DeKok, 07:42
There can be more than one, Andrew W. Donoho, 07:31
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Roy Badami, 06:39
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Graham Murray, 04:48
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Chris Haynes, 03:29
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Graham Murray, 02:36
Re: IP Address spoofing, Chris Haynes, 02:14
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Chris Haynes, 01:46
Re: IP Address spoofing, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:24
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Chris Haynes, 00:55
Re: Sender-ID and last hop validation, Graham Murray, 00:21
Re: Sender-ID and last hop validation, william(at)elan.net, 00:00

August 18, 2004

Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Douglas Otis, 23:39
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 23:16
Re: Reputation systems, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 20:41
Re: Solution For Trojans, Alan DeKok, 19:35
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Margaret Olson, 19:11
Re: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Margaret Olson, 19:00
Re: Sender-ID and last hop validation, Alan DeKok, 18:57
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Daryl Odnert, 18:04
RE: IP Address spoofing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:57
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Douglas Otis, 17:49
Re: Solution For Trojans, Douglas Otis, 16:39
IP Address spoofing, Nate Leon, 16:32
Sender-ID and last hop validation, Nate Leon, 16:13
RE: Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Harry Katz, 15:30
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:59
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt, John Leslie, 14:52
Forged Sender (Resent-From) attacks, Nate Leon, 14:34
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Alan DeKok, 14:20
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Dean Anderson, 13:55
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Dean Anderson, 13:24
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-02.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:23
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:23
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:23
RE: New draft-ietf-marid-core-03 and draft-ietf-marid-pra-00, Nate Leon, 12:20
Comparison of Sender-ID versus SPF and MPR & BATV, Douglas Otis, 11:09
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Daryl Odnert, 10:56
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Sauer, Damon, 10:39
Re: IPR (Was: draft minutes of the San Diego meeting), Andrew Newton, 10:30
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Chris Haynes, 10:15
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Daryl Odnert, 09:38
IPR (Was: draft minutes of the San Diego meeting), Hadmut Danisch, 09:29
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Hadmut Danisch, 09:18
Re: Not a point of order RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed respo nse to MARID WG Charter, Dean Anderson, 08:52
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:25
Not a point of order RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed respo nse to MARID WG Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:19
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Dean Anderson, 08:19
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Marshall Rose, 08:05
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Tony Finch, 07:51
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Dean Anderson, 07:24
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Chart er, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:16
RE: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Sauer, Damon, 06:38
Re: Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Andrew Newton, 06:27
Point of Order: Incomplete, flawed response to MARID WG Charter, Chris Haynes, 03:35
Re: But what about accreditation/reputation?, Dave Crocker, 00:10

August 17, 2004

Re: But what about accreditation/reputation?, Rand Wacker, 21:52
Re: [Asrg] REDIRECt to ASRG RE: Reputation systems, wayne, 21:04
Checking MAIL FROM (was: What Meng said), Roy Badami, 14:15
Mail Policy Records (MPR), Douglas Otis, 12:40
Re: But what about accreditation/reputation?, John Levine, 12:35
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 12:20
But what about accreditation/reputation?, Jim Fenton, 11:10
RE: [Asrg] REDIRECt to ASRG RE: Reputation systems, John R Levine, 10:25
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 09:57
RE: [Asrg] REDIRECt to ASRG RE: Reputation systems, Ryan Malayter, 09:51
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 09:26
RE: What Meng said, Sauer, Damon, 09:24
Re: What Meng said, Andrew W. Donoho, 09:12
Re: What Meng said, Margaret Olson, 09:07
Re: What Meng said, Tripp Cox, 08:44
Checking MAIL FROM (was: What Meng said), Roy Badami, 08:37
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 08:25
Re: What Meng said, Meng Weng Wong, 08:11
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Dave Crocker, 08:03
Re: What Meng said, Rand Wacker, 08:03
Re: What Meng said, Meng Weng Wong, 07:25
RE: Reputation systems, Tony Finch, 02:25

August 16, 2004

timestamps / 2476bis / PRA (was: Changes for protocol-01), Frank Ellermann, 18:27
Re: REDIRECt to ASRG RE: Reputation systems, John R Levine, 18:00
REDIRECt to ASRG RE: Reputation systems, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:28
RE: Reputation systems, Ryan Malayter, 16:34
Re: short-term milestones, Marshall Rose, 16:18
Re: Reputation systems, John Levine, 15:16
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 13:52
Re: What Meng said, Mark Lentczner, 13:52
Re: What Meng said, Chris Haynes, 13:10
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:19
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-submitter-03.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:19
Re: What Meng said, John Leslie, 12:00
Re: Reputation systems, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10:28
RE: Reputation systems, Tony Finch, 10:27
RE: Reputation systems, Ryan Malayter, 10:11
RE: What Meng said, Harry Katz, 09:52
Re: What Meng said, Chris Haynes, 03:29
Using Sender-ID as an inefficient CSV, Tony Finch, 00:58

August 15, 2004

Reputation systems, Meng Weng Wong, 20:37
sender_agents, Meng Weng Wong, 20:31
Re: What Meng said, Mark Lentczner, 19:02
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 19:00
Re: What Meng said, John Leslie, 15:55
Re: What Meng said, Chris Haynes, 11:38
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 10:09

August 14, 2004

Re: Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Dean Anderson, 19:27
Re: What Meng said, Margaret Olson, 14:39
Re: Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Philip Miller, 09:05
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 08:48
Re: Changes for protocol-01, Meng Weng Wong, 08:15
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 07:51
Re: Changes for protocol-01, Frank Ellermann, 03:13

August 13, 2004

RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 23:38
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Graham Murray, 22:53
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 18:30
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 17:15
draft-ietf-marid-submitter-03, Harry Katz, 16:44
Re: Changes for protocol-01, Mark Lentczner, 16:42
New draft-ietf-marid-core-03 and draft-ietf-marid-pra-00, Jim Lyon, 16:38
Changes for protocol-01, Roy Badami, 16:21
Changes for protocol-01, Mark Lentczner, 15:36
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 15:30
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 12:44
Re: What Meng said, Andrew W. Donoho, 11:50
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 11:24
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 10:56
Re: What Meng said, Carl S. Gutekunst, 10:32
Re: What Meng said, Carl S. Gutekunst, 10:08
Re: Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, Eric Allman, 09:18
Re: Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, Dave Crocker, 09:12
Re: Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, ned . freed, 08:42
Re: What Meng said, Andrew W. Donoho, 08:30
Re: Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, Eric Allman, 08:21
Re: 'Recognized' mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Mark Shewmaker, 00:15

August 12, 2004

Re: What Meng said, Meng Weng Wong, 23:56
RE: Additional security consideration for marid-core, Jim Fenton, 22:42
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Graham Murray, 22:12
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 20:39
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 18:38
Re: On the name of the SUBMITTER= parameter, Douglas Otis, 15:58
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 15:56
On the name of the SUBMITTER= parameter, Roy Badami, 15:31
Re: record size and wild cards, John Levine, 12:51
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 10:09
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 08:33
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Ryan Malayter, 07:54
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 04:36
Re: What Meng said, Tony Finch, 03:43
RE: Additional security consideration for marid-core, Gordon Fecyk, 02:23

August 11, 2004

Re: Additional security consideration for marid-core, william(at)elan.net, 23:45
Additional security consideration for marid-core, Jim Fenton, 22:34
Re: record size and wild cards, william(at)elan.net, 22:05
Re: record size and wild cards, Frank Ellermann, 21:48
Re: record size and wild cards, John Levine, 19:27
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Gordon Fecyk, 18:40
Re: Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, ned . freed, 18:20
RE: 'Recognized' mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Gordon Fecyk, 18:15
Re: Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Dean Anderson, 18:03
Re: 'Recognized' mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Michel Bouissou, 17:49
Re: "Recognized" mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Mark Shewmaker, 17:33
RE: "Recognized" mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Gordon Fecyk, 17:28
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 17:22
Re: What Meng said, Jim Fenton, 17:08
Changes in the queue for marid-submitter-03, Harry Katz, 17:00
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:48
Re: "Recognized" mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Shevek, 16:43
Re: What Meng said, ned . freed, 16:35
Re: What Meng said, Murray S. Kucherawy, 16:33
RE: What Meng said, Harry Katz, 16:29
"Recognized" mailing lists, RE: What Meng said, Gordon Fecyk, 15:53
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 15:44
Re: What Meng said, Michel Bouissou, 15:24
Re: What Meng said, Mark Lentczner, 14:38
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 14:23
Re: What Meng said, Andrew Newton, 14:11
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 13:56
RE: What Meng said, John Glube, 13:50
RE: What Meng said, Jim Lyon, 13:37
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 13:11
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 13:10
Re: What Meng said, Meng Weng Wong, 11:55
Re: change of version string, Douglas Otis, 11:34
RE: missing submitter, was What Meng said, Jim Lyon, 11:12
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Michael Thomas, 10:46
Re: missing submitter, was What Meng said, John Levine, 10:36
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 10:03
Re: change of version string, George Mitchell, 10:02
Re: What Meng said, ned . freed, 09:57
RE: What Meng said, Jim Lyon, 09:49
Re: What Meng said, Rand Wacker, 09:43
Re: What Meng said, Tony Finch, 09:36
Re: What Meng said, Dave Crocker, 09:34
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09:27
What Meng said, Andrew Newton, 09:07
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Andrew Newton, 08:58
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Rand Wacker, 08:42
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Michael Thomas, 08:14
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Michael Thomas, 07:59
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, John Glube, 07:53
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Michael Thomas, 07:46
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Alan DeKok, 07:36
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Alan DeKok, 07:33
draft minutes of the San Diego meeting, Andrew Newton, 07:20
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Andrew Newton, 07:05
SUBMITTER/PRA Allows Spread of Viruses, Too (was: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?), Michael R. Brumm, 06:26
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:54
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, william(at)elan.net, 04:41
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Peter Koch, 04:34
RE: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 04:29
RE: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Gordon Fecyk, 02:49
Re: change of version string, william(at)elan.net, 02:49
Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 02:20
RE: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Tony Finch, 00:57
Re: Upcoming changes in protocol draft, Frank Ellermann, 00:35
Re: record size and wild cards, Frank Ellermann, 00:12

August 10, 2004

RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 23:01
Re: Wildcards not useable, Mark Lentczner, 22:27
Re: change of version string, Jim Fenton, 21:55
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, David Blacka, 21:19
Re: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Murray S. Kucherawy, 20:05
Re: Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Rand Wacker, 20:01
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Rand Wacker, 19:55
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, Rand Wacker, 19:53
Re: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Meng Weng Wong, 19:38
RE: Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Sauer, Damon, 19:18
Re: change of version string, kent crispin, 18:51
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, John Levine, 17:56
Re: change of version string, David Blacka, 17:14
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, David Blacka, 17:09
Analysis of SPF benefits for reduced filtering, Dean Anderson, 16:55
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:44
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:28
Re: change of version string, wayne, 16:21
Re: record size and wild cards, was change of version string, John Levine, 16:18
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:13
Wildcards not useable, Douglas Otis, 15:31
Re: change of version string, Rand Wacker, 14:59
RE: you must fill your zones with TXT records, Gordon Fecyk, 14:14
Re: change of version string, Ted Hardie, 13:58
you must fill your zones with TXT records, Tony Finch, 12:18
When SPF is incompatible with Sender-ID, Tony Finch, 12:10
Re: change of version string, wayne, 11:46
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Douglas Otis, 11:34
Re: change of version string, Ted Hardie, 10:40
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Mark Shewmaker, 05:39
Re: Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Chris Haynes, 03:06
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Shevek, 03:02
Re: Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Mark Shewmaker, 00:50

August 09, 2004

Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Jim Fenton, 23:21
Re: Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Jim Fenton, 22:22
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, John Glube, 19:58
RE: Upcoming changes in protocol draft, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:19
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Chris Haynes, 18:49
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Harry Katz, 18:02
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Harry Katz, 17:56
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Philip Miller, 17:40
Re: Upcoming changes in protocol draft, Dave Crocker, 16:51
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Shevek, 16:48
change of version string, Meng Weng Wong, 16:14
Upcoming changes in protocol draft, Mark Lentczner, 14:53
RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Harry Katz, 14:09
Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Frank Ellermann, 12:27
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, ned . freed, 10:33
Re: Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Chris Haynes, 09:58
Re: Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Rand Wacker, 08:43
Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Shevek, 08:43
Another reason for sender_agents, Mark Shewmaker, 06:45
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Margaret Olson, 05:55
Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Graham Murray, 05:32
Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Shevek, 04:34
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Shevek, 04:23

August 08, 2004

Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, John Leslie, 14:33

August 07, 2004

Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Graham Murray, 22:16
RE: Will Accepting Using PRA Get You Blacklisted?, Michael R. Brumm, 17:49
RE: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Michael R. Brumm, 16:57
Re: Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, ned . freed, 09:19
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Frank Ellermann, 08:38
Re: milestones for CSV, Andrew Newton, 06:08
Re: changing the SPF record version number?, Frank Ellermann, 05:06
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Graham Murray, 04:46
Will Accepting SUBMITTER Get You Blacklisted?, Michael R. Brumm, 04:17
The application of PRA-related IPR to MUAs, Chris Haynes, 04:01
Security-related Wording issues - section 6.3, Chris Haynes, 04:01
Security issue: End-user dependence on MTA integrity, Chris Haynes, 04:01
Security issue: Minority installed base of compatible MUAs?, Chris Haynes, 04:00
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Frank Ellermann, 03:17
RE: "unified spf", James Pullicino, 02:16

August 06, 2004

RE: sender_agents modifier, Mark Shewmaker, 23:50
Re: "unified spf", Dave Crocker, 23:40
Re: The real reason MARID won't work, RE: testing of MARID proposals, Alan DeKok, 20:30
RE: sender_agents modifier, Jim Lyon, 17:32
sender_agents modifier, Mark Shewmaker, 16:42
RE: The real reason MARID won't work, RE: testing of MARID proposals, Murray S. Kucherawy, 15:47
RE: The real reason MARID won't work, RE: testing of MARID proposals, Ryan Malayter, 15:08
milestones for CSV, John Glube, 14:05
Re: testing of MARID proposals, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:10
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:06
The real reason MARID won't work, RE: testing of MARID proposals, Gordon Fecyk, 12:25
Re: testing of MARID proposals, Douglas Otis, 11:24
RE: testing of MARID proposals, Gordon Fecyk, 11:13
Re: testing of MARID proposals, wayne, 10:44
Re: testing of MARID proposals, Hadmut Danisch, 10:29
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Douglas Otis, 10:04
testing of MARID proposals, Andrew Newton, 09:36
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Hadmut Danisch, 09:27
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 08:57
Re: SUBMITTER and PRA, Meng Weng Wong, 08:18
Re: SUBMITTER and PRA, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 08:04
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 08:02
"unified spf", Meng Weng Wong, 06:47
SUBMITTER and PRA, Meng Weng Wong, 06:29
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:03
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:58
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, ned . freed, 00:21

August 05, 2004

Re: Some statistics from the SPF-discuss list, Andrew Newton, 19:32
Re: Some statistics from the SPF-discuss list, Philip Miller, 16:52
Re: Some statistics from the SPF-discuss list, Andrew Newton, 15:37
RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 15:22
Some statistics from the SPF-discuss list, wayne, 15:10
RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 14:42
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 11:56
changing the SPF record version number?, wayne, 11:53
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 11:44
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, wayne, 11:33
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), wayne, 11:09
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Guillaume Filion, 11:06
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Hadmut Danisch, 11:02
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Hadmut Danisch, 10:49
Re: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, ned . freed, 10:42
Re: marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Meng Weng Wong, 10:28
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Meng Weng Wong, 10:17
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Eric A. Hall, 10:15
marid-submitter-02: Recipient's point of view, Hadmut Danisch, 10:06
marid-submitter-02: What is a SUBMITTER?, Hadmut Danisch, 10:00
marid-submitter-02: Which SUBMITTER value?, Hadmut Danisch, 09:51
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, wayne, 09:50
Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?, Hadmut Danisch, 09:42
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Michel Bouissou, 09:37
RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 09:16
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 09:03
Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Andrew Newton, 09:03
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 08:50
Re: short-term milestones, Andrew Newton, 08:45
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Michel Bouissou, 03:30
Re: SPF/FROM-HDR, Frank Ellermann, 02:05
Re: SPF/FROM-HDR, Frank Ellermann, 01:41
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings...As PDF, Michel Bouissou, 01:16
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Graham Murray, 00:15
Re: short-term milestones, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:14
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:11

August 04, 2004

Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings...As PDF, Frank Ellermann, 23:36
So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 21:03
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings...As PDF, Andrew W. Donoho, 19:54
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings, Philip Miller, 18:28
RE: Slide decks from MARID meetings, Gordon Fecyk, 17:54
Re: Discussing CSV, Andrew Newton, 17:50
Re: Minutes or summary?, Marshall Rose, 17:45
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings, Marshall Rose, 17:45
short-term milestones, Marshall Rose, 17:41
Minutes or summary?, Hadmut Danisch, 17:12
Re: Slide decks from MARID meetings, Michel Bouissou, 16:43
Slide decks from MARID meetings, Harry Katz, 16:26
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammersubscribed to this list ? ), Douglas Otis, 15:02
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Douglas Otis, 13:55
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:48
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Rand Wacker, 13:18
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), wayne, 12:44
Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Hadmut Danisch, 12:23
Interaction with anti-spam systems (was Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ? ), Alan DeKok, 11:51
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Michel Bouissou, 11:20
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Meng Weng Wong, 11:01
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Meng Weng Wong, 10:55
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Michel Bouissou, 10:55
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Tony Finch, 10:49
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Tony Finch, 10:37
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Hadmut Danisch, 10:36
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Tony Finch, 10:30
Re: Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Meng Weng Wong, 10:27
RE: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Pete Resnick, 10:07
Another question on draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02, Hadmut Danisch, 10:04
RE: SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), John Glube, 10:00
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:38
RE: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:31
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Tony Finch, 09:20
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:47
Re: SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), wayne, 08:43
Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Hadmut Danisch, 08:38
Re: SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), Michel Bouissou, 08:17
Re: SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), wayne, 08:04
Re: A suggestion concerning Sender-ID/Submitter, Andrew Newton, 08:03
SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), Frank Ellermann, 06:48
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Tony Finch, 01:46

August 03, 2004

RE: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, John Glube, 21:20
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, william(at)elan.net, 20:05
Re: A suggestion concerning Sender-ID/Submitter, william(at)elan.net, 19:50
A suggestion concerning Sender-ID/Submitter, John Glube, 18:48
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 18:42
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 18:08
RE: Will there be video of the MARID sessions?, Tek, 18:04
RE: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, william(at)elan.net, 17:47
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, John Leslie, 17:36
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 17:34
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:30
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 17:10
RE: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Harry Katz, 16:53
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 16:49
Re: Discussing CSV, John Leslie, 16:39
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:19
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 16:19
Re: Will there be video of the MARID sessions?, Jim Fenton, 15:37
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 15:34
Discussing CSV, Mark Lentczner, 14:42
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 14:19
Re: Schedule for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 11:37
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Michel Bouissou, 11:34
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, wayne, 10:29
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Douglas Otis, 09:38
Re: Schedule for Sender-ID, wayne, 04:32
Re: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID, Andrew Newton, 03:52

August 02, 2004

RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, John Glube, 19:16
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:25
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:41
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, william(at)elan.net, 16:30
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 15:34
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:32
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 12:56
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 12:32
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 11:14
Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Michel Bouissou, 11:14
RE: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Ryan Malayter, 11:09
Re: A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Pete Resnick, 10:47
A spammer subscribed to this list ?, Michel Bouissou, 10:29
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:01
Will there be video of the MARID sessions?, wayne, 08:28
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, John Glube, 08:03
Isn't spam a Security Problem? (was Re: How is SPF different from RMX?), Andrew W. Donoho, 06:58
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Michel Bouissou, 00:37
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Graham Murray, 00:28

August 01, 2004

RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 23:25
Re: How is SPF different from RMX?, Dean Anderson, 23:25
RE: How is SPF different from RMX?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:07

July 31, 2004

Re: Is the back door open?, Douglas Otis, 23:34