IETF MARID (date)

IETF MARID (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

September 30, 2004

RE: IPR issues bieng tested in court in Europe - and London, England is the worlds biggest hub, Gordon Fecyk, 16:06
RE: IPR issues bieng tested in court in Europe - and London, Engl and is the worlds biggest hub, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:57
IPR issues bieng tested in court in Europe - and London, England is the worlds biggest hub, jpinkerton, 13:30
Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:20
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 00:03

September 29, 2004

Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Douglas Otis, 22:53
Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 12:19
Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Matthew Elvey, 11:09
Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:40

September 28, 2004

Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 21:40
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 16:30
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 16:26
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 13:55
RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 12:59
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Justin Mason, 12:12
RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 12:06
RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 11:10
Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 10:52
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 07:53
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:09

September 27, 2004

OT: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, terry, 19:22
Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Alternative draft for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 18:31
Re: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Hector Santos, 17:59
RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 17:41
RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 17:19
RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 16:56
RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 15:51
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 13:30
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 12:43
Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 12:39
Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 11:52
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Marshall Rose, 11:27
Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 11:19
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 10:46
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), wayne, 10:04
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Matt Sergeant, 09:54
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09:53
RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Douglas Otis, 09:34
RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:29
RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:38
RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), John Glube, 04:30
mailing list for CSV/BATV pre-standards discussions, Dave Crocker, 00:08

September 26, 2004

Re: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Graham Murray, 23:52
Re: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, John Levine, 13:20

September 25, 2004

RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Gordon Fecyk, 18:21
RE: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Gordon Fecyk, 17:53
RE: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Sug gestions, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:59
"Wasted" CSV-DNA lookups, John Leslie, 12:43
Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Greg Connor, 12:21
Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:40

September 24, 2004

[On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Gordon Fecyk, 20:42
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Rand Wacker, 12:17
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Graeme Leith, 11:40
Re: MARID Monday, Andrew Newton, 11:18
Re: ITU, was Disappointed, John Levine, 11:17
Re: Disappointed, Wietse Venema, 11:13
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 10:41
RE: Disappointed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:44
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Wietse Venema, 09:26
Re: Disappointed, Andrew Newton, 08:56
Re: MARID to close, Andrew Newton, 08:55
Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 08:36
Re: by the numbers, wayne, 06:05
Re: by the numbers, Hector Santos, 05:26
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Tony Finch, 05:07

September 23, 2004

Re: by the numbers, wayne, 18:46
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 18:00
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 14:59
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 10:37
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 09:44
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Alan DeKok, 08:54
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Dave Crocker, 07:50
Re: A Note of Appreciation, Margaret Olson, 07:13
The Village Idiot's point of view (Re: The Crystal Ball Says...), Hadmut Danisch, 04:00
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Douglas Otis, 03:42
Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 02:30
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 00:15

September 22, 2004

Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 22:21
Re: Disappointed, Hector Santos, 21:36
Re: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Hector Santos, 21:12
WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 20:44
Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 20:27
draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 20:06
RE: Disappointed, william(at)elan.net, 19:46
[OK, one more time...] RE: Disappointed, Gordon Fecyk, 19:18
RE: Disappointed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:36
WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Matthew Elvey, 17:16
The Crystal Ball Says..., Gordon Fecyk, 17:14
Re: MARID to close, Ryan Ordway, 17:05
RE: A Note of Appreciation, John Glube, 16:33
RE: MARID to close, Rik van Riel, 16:13
Re: MARID to close, csm, 16:00
Re: A Note of Appreciation, Hadmut Danisch, 16:00
RE: A Note of Appreciation, John Glube, 15:57
Re: Disappointed, Hadmut Danisch, 15:50
Re: MARID to close, Mark, 15:48
RE: Disappointed, Ian Peter, 15:43
Re: A Note of Appreciation, wayne, 15:34
RE: MARID to close, william(at)elan.net, 15:27
Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Frank Ellermann, 15:23
Re: MARID to close, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:48
Re: Disappointed, Paul Iadonisi, 14:37
Re: MARID to close, Michael Hammer, 14:23
RE: MARID to close, Markley, Mike, 14:16
Re: MARID to close, mxcomp, 13:57
RE: MARID to close, terry, 13:44
Disappointed, Greg Connor, 13:29
Re: MARID to close, Frank Ellermann, 13:25
Re: MARID to close, Mark Baugher, 13:23
A Note of Appreciation, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:55
WG Action: Conclusion of MTA Authorization Records in DNS (marid), The IESG, 12:52
Re: MARID to close, Andrew Newton, 12:00
Re: MARID to close, Hadmut Danisch, 11:45
Re: MARID to close, Hadmut Danisch, 11:25
Re: MARID to close, wayne, 11:10
Re: MARID to close, william(at)elan.net, 10:58
MARID to close, Ted Hardie, 09:31
Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Hector Santos, 04:11
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 01:04

September 21, 2004

Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, wayne, 22:29
Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, wayne, 22:26
Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", John Levine, 20:09
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Matthew Elvey, 19:45
Re: MARID Monday, wayne, 17:52
RE: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Gordon Fecyk, 12:36
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Douglas Otis, 11:57
Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", wayne, 11:40
Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", wayne, 11:32
regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Andrew Newton, 10:16
RE: IANAL and neither are you, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:26
IANAL and neither are you, Roy Badami, 05:56
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, David Woodhouse, 03:59
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Douglas Otis, 02:39
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matt Sergeant, 01:01
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:48
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:38
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:34

September 20, 2004

Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Frank Ellermann, 20:01
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, John Leslie, 19:08
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matthew Elvey, 18:48
Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Douglas Otis, 17:21
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Douglas Otis, 16:40
Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matthew Elvey, 16:31
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Frank Ellermann, 13:30
Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, James Couzens, 13:20
MARID Monday, Andrew Newton, 13:02
Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (Was: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Douglas Otis, 12:25
RE: SenderID name in use by somebody else, william(at)elan.net, 11:04
Re: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Paul S. Brown, 08:41
RE: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:09
Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (Was: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:51
Re: New drafts, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:38

September 19, 2004

Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 15:24
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Douglas Otis, 15:17
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Dave Crocker, 13:31
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Mark C. Langston, 12:39
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Dave Crocker, 12:29
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Chris Haynes, 12:09
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Dave Crocker, 11:50
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Mark C. Langston, 10:57
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, David Woodhouse, 10:33
Re: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Andrew Newton, 09:34
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Tony Finch, 05:38
SenderID name in use by somebody else, william(at)elan.net, 04:59
Proposal for VERIFIED keyword, Chris Haynes, 03:05
Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Chris Haynes, 03:00
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Douglas Otis, 00:01

September 18, 2004

Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Alan DeKok, 18:55
Re: Why we should (not) authenticate multiple identities, Matthew Elvey, 16:45
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Douglas Otis, 16:30
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Claus Färber, 13:50
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, william(at)elan.net, 11:54
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Meng Weng Wong, 11:24
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Douglas Otis, 11:16
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, william(at)elan.net, 11:12
Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, David Woodhouse, 11:06
draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 10:23
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 10:09
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Meng Weng Wong, 09:12
Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Meng Weng Wong, 08:49
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 08:32
RE: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Gordon Fecyk, 08:28
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Pete Resnick, 07:51
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications (Safe to Read Even If You Are Avoiding Reading the Patents), Hadmut Danisch, 07:30
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, David Woodhouse, 04:56
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Roy Badami, 04:34
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, David Woodhouse, 03:20

September 17, 2004

SPF Archive?, Re: ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Matthew Elvey, 20:41
Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications (Safe to Read Even If You Are Avoiding Reading the Patents), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 18:52
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 17:45
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Bill McQuillan, 17:03
IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, John Levine, 16:51
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 16:33
minor comments on draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03.txt, Nate Leon, 16:14
Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:10
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 15:45
Re: ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Douglas Otis, 15:16
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 14:40
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Pete Resnick, 13:57
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 13:45
RE: Patent Application 683624, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:02
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 12:21
Re: migration strategy for "-all", David Woodhouse, 11:29
Re: Moving on from the train wreck, Tom Kistner, 11:24
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Peter Koch, 10:45
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 10:39
Re: Patent Application 683624, Douglas Otis, 10:37
migration strategy for "-all", Meng Weng Wong, 10:22
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09:56
RE: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-iet f-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 09:16
Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, Gordon Fecyk, 09:01
Re: Moving on from the train wreck, David Woodhouse, 08:46
RE: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-iet f-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:30
Re: Moving on from the train wreck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 08:16
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 07:53
Moving on from the train wreck, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:22
Re: by the numbers, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:32
Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Daniel Quinlan, 00:40
TECH-DOC: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00.txt, Hector Santos, 00:05

September 16, 2004

Re: Patent Application 683624, william(at)elan.net, 23:29
Re: Patent Application 683624, Douglas Otis, 22:55
Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Meng Weng Wong, 22:20
ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Matthew Elvey, 21:56
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Hector Santos, 21:21
Re: SPF abused by spammers - Fixing RFC 2821 issues, Hector Santos, 20:35
Patent Application 683624, Meng Weng Wong, 19:17
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Frank Ellermann, 17:10
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 15:52
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Mark, 14:50
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Scott Kitterman, 14:23
IANAL and neither are you, Daniel Quinlan, 13:48
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 13:23
RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 12:57
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:39
I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00.txt, Internet-Drafts, 12:39
Re: AOL on Sender I.D.., Carl Hutzler, 12:34
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 12:02
Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 10:56
Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Andrew Newton, 10:36
Re: AOL on Sender I.D.., Andrew Newton, 09:22
Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 09:08
Re: New drafts, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:14
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 03:12
New drafts, Mark Lentczner, 00:41
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 00:11

September 15, 2004

AOL on Sender I.D.., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 21:54
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Frank Ellermann, 19:19
FTC Email Authentication Summit Nov 9,10 Washington DC, Carl Hutzler, 18:13
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Frank Ellermann, 17:53
Re: HELO and Unified, Frank Ellermann, 16:17
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Douglas Otis, 15:36
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 15:28
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Alan DeKok, 15:09
reminder: 3 message/day limit, Marshall Rose, 15:06
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 14:18
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 13:46
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., David Woodhouse, 13:41
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Rik van Riel, 13:35
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 13:31
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 12:37
Re: HELO and Unified, Douglas Otis, 12:37
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Markus Stumpf, 12:26
Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan, 12:22
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 11:49
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Markus Stumpf, 11:39
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Tony Finch, 11:38
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 11:22
Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 11:20
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., terry, 11:19
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Mark, 11:15
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 11:15
Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 11:10
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 11:00
Re: MTAMARK and RFC 2317, was Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 10:59
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., David Woodhouse, 10:58
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflag day., Mark, 10:56
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 10:50
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 10:47
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 10:46
Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton, 10:43
Re: A&R BCP & Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 10:40
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 10:30
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Matthew Elvey, 10:29
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 10:28
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 10:24
A&R BCP & Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Matthew Elvey, 10:14
Re: HELO and Unified, Jim Fenton, 10:11
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 10:11
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., Mark, 10:11
Re: HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 10:09
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., Tony Finch, 10:06
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Tony Finch, 10:04
Re: MTAMARK and RFC 2317, was Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 10:00
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., David Woodhouse, 10:00
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rik van Riel, 09:51
Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 09:48
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., terry, 09:47
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Rik van Riel, 09:46
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Mark, 09:40
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Claus Färber, 09:40
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 09:33
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Tony Finch, 09:28
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Tony Finch, 09:12
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., terry, 08:26
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Margaret Olson, 08:00
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 07:48
Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton, 07:13
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 07:04
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., Tony Finch, 07:04
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Eric A. Hall, 07:02
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 06:52
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Margaret Olson, 06:28
Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 05:46
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:21
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., terry, 05:10
Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 04:46
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 04:32
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 04:28
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Mark, 04:17
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., wayne, 03:58
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Graham Murray, 03:43
DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 02:23
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY- IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 01:26
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 00:58
Re: HELO and Unified, Matthew Elvey, 00:19

September 14, 2004

Re: [Fwd: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. )], AccuSpam, 23:54
PRA is dead. Media, nanae/nanabl.(was Re: Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 23:24
FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Harry Katz, 23:24
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 23:18
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark, 22:50
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 22:26
Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan, 22:24
HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 19:41
RHSBLs (was Re: HELO, IPR, A&R ..., Matthew Elvey, 19:20
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Meng Weng Wong, 18:59
RE: Interpreting "v=spf1", terry, 18:45
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 18:35
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Margaret Olson, 18:19
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 18:17
RE: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:54
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 16:53
Misinformation - Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 16:49
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 16:19
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), John Leslie, 16:14
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark Lentczner, 15:38
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Sam Varshavchik, 15:33
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 15:25
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 15:23
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:06
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 14:45
HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 14:14
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 13:44
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 13:18
Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 11:36
Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Douglas Otis, 11:33
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 11:31
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 11:29
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 11:21
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 11:17
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 11:07
Re: by the numbers, wayne, 10:54
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 10:22
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 10:09
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Yakov Shafranovich, 09:50
Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 09:46
Re: the TCP argument again, consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 09:23
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09:09
by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 09:06
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Mark Lentczner, 08:27
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:06
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:05
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 07:30
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 07:12
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 07:06
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 06:16
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Patrik Fältström, 06:04
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Patrik Fältström, 04:45
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:11
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Tony Finch, 03:54
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 02:46
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 01:37
Re: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 01:09
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Danny Angus, 01:07
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 00:00

September 13, 2004

RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 23:57
Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:41
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:38
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 22:19
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 22:09
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:59
RE: Work plan for Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 21:55
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:49
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:39
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:29
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:19
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 21:09
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 20:59
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 20:59
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 20:59
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 20:46
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 20:39
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 20:28
Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), wayne, 20:21
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Ted Hardie, 18:22
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 18:09
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy, 17:46
[Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 17:25
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 17:10
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 16:49
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:39
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 16:34
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Daniel Quinlan, 16:23
Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 15:03
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 14:59
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 14:48
RE: What the lawyers and suits think, william(at)elan.net, 13:41
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 13:30
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 13:09
RE: What the lawyers and suits think, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:06
TECH OMISSION + DEPLOY: PRA algorithm failure scenarios with mail lists that add only Sender header must be mentioned, william(at)elan.net, 12:32
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 12:13
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 11:59
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 11:49
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:43
Re: What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:42
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 11:40
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 11:30
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 11:24
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 11:21
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 10:51
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 10:26
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 10:20
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 10:03
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 10:02
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09:55
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09:29
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 09:04
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 08:45
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 08:35
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 08:26
Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 08:22
Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:45
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 07:35
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 07:16
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:29
Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 06:27
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 05:56
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 05:43
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 05:20
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 04:42
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 04:33
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 04:29
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 04:02
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 03:07
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:29
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 01:32
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 00:57

September 12, 2004

TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 22:36
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 22:11
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dave Crocker, 21:48
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 18:14
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:33
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:25
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:18
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Frank Ellermann, 13:35
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Peter Koch, 10:50
Consensus decision vs. deployment concerns, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:12
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 10:06
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Douglas Otis, 09:57
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09:46
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Eric A. Hall, 09:26
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, wayne, 09:07
Re: What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Andrew Newton, 06:20
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 06:09
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, jpinkerton, 01:38

September 11, 2004

Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 23:02
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 22:56
What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 22:48
Will SPFv1 records be ok for the "MAIL FROM" scope?, wayne, 18:40
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:31
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, George Mitchell, 17:59
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 16:19
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:10
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 16:03
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:41
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Mark C. Langston, 15:16
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:11
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:08
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Mark C. Langston, 15:01
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 14:48
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 14:33
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 14:06
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Guillaume Filion, 14:05
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hadmut Danisch, 13:00
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 12:59
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 12:42
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 11:47
co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 10:59
Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Marshall Rose, 10:07
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 06:44
Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, wayne, 05:52
Re: [Asrg] Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, william(at)elan.net, 05:08
Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Hadmut Danisch, 04:25

September 10, 2004

RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 20:29
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 20:16
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Frank Ellermann, 19:06
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark, 18:37
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Frank Ellermann, 18:31
Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 16:58
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 16:57
Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 16:57
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 16:28
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 16:20
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 16:01
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Frank Ellermann, 15:53
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 15:17
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark Lentczner, 14:54
I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 14:30
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 14:20
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Frank Ellermann, 14:17
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 13:45
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 13:05
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 12:53
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 11:33
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Alan DeKok, 11:04
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:13
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Margaret Olson, 09:28
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark, 09:27
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09:23
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 09:10
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 08:42
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 08:33
Re: Conclusion of Last Call?, Andrew Newton, 08:28
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 08:20
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 08:19
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 08:16
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:06
Conclusion of Last Call?, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:04
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Mark, 07:45
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 07:28
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Scott Kitterman, 07:24
DOC-BUG: Determining the Purported Responsible Address, Graham Finlayson, 07:22
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 07:21
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 07:21
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 07:07
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 07:04
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 06:54
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Benjamin Franz, 06:47
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:45
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 06:45
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 06:33
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 06:26
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:24
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:16
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 06:14
Request for MARID-PRA-Examples document, Graham Finlayson, 06:09
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:07
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 06:07
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 06:06
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:00
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 05:59
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:55
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 05:33
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 04:34
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 02:40
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 01:21

September 09, 2004

Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Daniel Quinlan, 23:29
problems with patents: the IDN example from RFC3669, wayne, 19:09
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 18:50
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 17:48
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 17:08
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 16:42
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 16:14
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 15:59
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Ted Hardie, 15:38
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Max Kanat-Alexander, 14:57
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, william(at)elan.net, 14:56
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 14:33
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 14:31
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:44
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Michael R. Brumm, 13:43
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 13:16
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 12:31
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 12:31
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 11:51
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 11:38
clarification on consensus call for compromise, Andrew Newton, 11:21
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:50
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09:39
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:38
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Patrik Fältström, 09:15
Re: SPF abused by spammers, william(at)elan.net, 09:00
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:46
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Michael Hammer, 08:28
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Danny Angus, 08:24
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 08:23
Beta Tool RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable,, Craig Spiezle, 08:14
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 08:11
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 08:09
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:00
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 07:58
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 07:55
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 07:20
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chuck Mead, 07:06
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 06:56
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 06:56
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable,, Holm, Mark, 06:43
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:37
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:21
SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 06:18
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:16
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Alan DeKok, 06:06
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 05:14
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 03:07
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Mark, 02:48
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Margaret Olson, 02:32
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 02:09
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 01:19
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 01:05
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 00:48
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, AccuSpam, 00:19
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Mark, 00:11

September 08, 2004

DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 23:48
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 23:28
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Michel Bouissou, 22:56
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 22:44
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 21:02
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 20:03
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 19:10
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 18:54
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 18:34
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 18:16
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 17:45
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, mazieres, 17:45
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 17:21
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 16:28
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 15:55
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 15:50
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 15:50
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 14:47
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark Lentczner, 14:25
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:22
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 14:12
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 14:10
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 14:07
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:00
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 13:55
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Hector Santos, 13:33
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Mark Lentczner, 13:33
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 13:21
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 13:12
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], gmc, 13:12
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:08
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:04
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 13:02
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:02
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 13:01
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:00
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 12:52
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 12:51
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 12:24
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:21
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 12:20
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 12:15
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 12:12
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Max Kanat-Alexander, 11:38
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 11:21
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:20
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Koen Martens, 11:18
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 11:11
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:45
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, william(at)elan.net, 10:24
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 10:20
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Jim Fenton, 10:20
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 10:20
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 10:17
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Peter Koch, 10:13
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], wayne, 10:04
(no subject), Clifford Hammerschmidt, 09:57
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Ryan Ordway, 09:56
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:54
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tripp Cox, 09:54
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Nate Leon, 09:39
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, David Woodhouse, 09:15
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 09:07
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Sauer, Damon, 08:55
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Wietse Venema, 08:52
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Meng Weng Wong, 08:45
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 08:41
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 08:40
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:38
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 08:36
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:26
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Guillaume Filion, 08:18
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 08:15
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 08:13
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark C. Langston, 08:12
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 08:07
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chris Haynes, 08:07
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 07:44
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 07:37
consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 06:37
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 06:02
RE: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], terry, 05:53
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Matt Sergeant, 05:49
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 04:58
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Margaret Olson, 03:25
DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 03:13
DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 03:12
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:06
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 01:12

September 07, 2004

Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, mazieres, 23:43
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 22:09
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, wayne, 21:09
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 19:47
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Meng Weng Wong, 19:02
TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 17:47
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 17:43
RE: TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Harry Katz, 17:23
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Hector Santos, 17:20
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Daniel Senie, 17:07
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 16:49
DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 16:48
DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 16:47
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 16:40
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 16:08
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:52
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 15:47
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 15:44
TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 15:41
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 15:30
TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 15:28
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:25
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 15:22
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 14:56
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Ryan Ordway, 14:46
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:45
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Mark Lentczner, 14:30
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 14:20
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 14:20
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 14:08
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Dean Anderson, 14:06
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:48
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:47
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Carl S. Gutekunst, 12:45
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:40
Re:, Ted Hardie, 12:04
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 12:01
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 11:30
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 10:47
RE: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Harry Katz, 10:35
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 10:33
[no subject], Robin Cover, 10:11
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:57
RE: [DOCBUG] -submitter, 5.3, Harry Katz, 09:56
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 09:51
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:49
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Ryan Malayter, 09:43
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:39
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harry Katz, 09:34
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 08:20
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Chris Haynes, 07:35
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 06:50
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 06:43
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:43
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:39
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 05:59
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Andrew Newton, 05:54
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:46
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 04:20
TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Tony Finch, 04:18
DOC-BUG (-core): typo, Tony Finch, 03:17
TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Tony Finch, 03:16
TECH-OMISSION (-core): multiple alias-forwarding hops, Tony Finch, 03:11
TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 03:06
TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 02:31
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 02:27
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 02:22
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, David Woodhouse, 01:18

September 06, 2004

RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 23:14
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 23:08
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 22:54
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 22:10
RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 21:21
RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 20:53
Re: RR sizes, was consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 20:43
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 20:22
RE: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Scott Kitterman, 20:09
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 19:43
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 19:34
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 18:44
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:32
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 18:11
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:03
RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Daniel Senie, 17:28
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 17:08
RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Jim Lyon, 16:50
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 16:47
Re: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Tripp Cox, 16:41
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 16:19
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 15:57
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:51
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 15:39
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:19
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 15:17
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chris Haynes, 14:42
TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 14:23
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:05
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:04
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:26
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Sam Varshavchik, 13:18
Re: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Yakov Shafranovich, 13:09
[DOCBUG] -submitter, 5.3, Matthias Leisi, 12:32
TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, John Levine, 12:30
[DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Matthias Leisi, 12:30
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 12:15
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:35
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:15
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, mazieres, 10:34
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Alan DeKok, 09:23
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 08:01
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 07:20
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:17
RE: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, terry, 06:10
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 05:41
RE: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, terry, 04:27
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 03:03
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 03:02
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Chris Haynes, 01:27
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, jpinkerton, 00:40
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 00:24
Re: DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:16

September 05, 2004

Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, wayne, 23:55
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Daniel Senie, 23:36
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, wayne, 23:12
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Bill McQuillan, 22:47
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 22:42
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 21:51
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark, 20:42
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 19:09
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 18:55
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 16:53
Re: DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, mazieres, 16:28
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 16:20
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 15:20
DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, Peter Koch, 15:00
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 14:54
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 14:01
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Yakov Shafranovich, 13:54
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, jpinkerton, 13:47
DOC-BUG in PRA: multiple mailboxes -> 'malformed', Peter Koch, 13:45
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 13:14
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 12:00
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Tony Finch, 11:29
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Peter Koch, 11:24
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:26
TECH-OMISSION: EDNS0 on authoritative servers should be mandated for large records, Roy Badami, 10:24
DOC-BUG: Use of non-RFC2119 language: STRONGLY ENCOURAGED, Roy Badami, 10:17
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 10:15
DOC-BUG: We need another document: Use of EDNS0 in recursive servers, Roy Badami, 10:15
OT: Forgery on moderated lists, Alan DeKok, 09:58
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 09:51
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 09:31
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 09:27
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 09:22
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Dean Anderson, 09:17
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defense against adaptive threats, Dean Anderson, 09:00
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Dean Anderson, 08:55
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Matthias Leisi, 07:41
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 06:46
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 06:23
[DEPLOY] personal testimony, Matthias Leisi, 06:16
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 05:15
DEPLOY new RR type deployment, Koen Martens, 03:27
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 03:20
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Michael R. Brumm, 02:54
DEPLOY, jpinkerton, 01:37
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Dave Crocker, 00:25
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 00:25

September 04, 2004

RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Michael R. Brumm, 22:24
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Michael R. Brumm, 22:16
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Mark Lentczner, 21:25
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:48
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:47
Re: RR prefix is not useful, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:43
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 18:39
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 14:36
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 14:15
Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 14:07
Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, mazieres, 14:01
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Roy Badami, 13:40
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 12:54
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Mark Lentczner, 12:45
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 12:34
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Mark Lentczner, 12:34
Re: Extension of Sender ID working group last call, Roy Badami, 12:06
DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 12:01
DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 11:58
DOC-BUG: Add note on RFC822 compatibility to -pra, Roy Badami, 11:42
DOC-BUG: Clarify implications of malformed messages, Roy Badami, 11:33
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 11:11
DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 10:55
TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Roy Badami, 10:46
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 10:41
consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Roy Badami, 10:33
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 10:21
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 10:20
RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Roy Badami, 10:10
Re: RR prefix is not useful, John R Levine, 09:36
Re: RR prefix is not useful, Rand Wacker, 09:28
DEPLOY: Debian project unable to deploy Sender ID, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader, 08:16
RR prefix is not useful, John Levine, 08:12
[Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Tripp Cox, 07:44
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 06:50
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 06:22
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, gmc, 06:19
RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, terry, 06:12
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defense against adaptive threats, terry, 06:06
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 02:26
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adapt ive threats, Dean Anderson, 01:51
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Dean Anderson, 01:39
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Koen Martens, 01:12
Re: Issues raised in comments by Steve Belovin from January 2004, Chris Haynes, 00:31
Re: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Chris Haynes, 00:21
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 00:17

September 03, 2004

Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Graham Murray, 21:53
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 21:24
RE: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 21:08
RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, terry, 20:45
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Scott Kitterman, 19:25
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton, 17:36
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, mazieres, 17:12
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 16:59
Issues raised in comments by Steve Belovin from January 2004, william(at)elan.net, 16:51
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adapt ive threats, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:42
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Senie, 16:42
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Max Kanat-Alexander, 16:39
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Mark C. Langston, 16:33
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 16:28
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:25
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Wietse Venema, 16:14
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 16:14
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 16:12
Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Daniel Senie, 16:10
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Sam Varshavchik, 16:09
Re: DOC-BUG: Security considerations for parsing records, william(at)elan.net, 16:07
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 16:05
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, william(at)elan.net, 15:49
DOC-BUG: Security considerations for parsing records, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:47
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, mazieres, 15:29
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Daniel Quinlan, 15:23
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Quinlan, 15:21
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 15:20
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 15:19
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Mark, 15:14
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Paul Iadonisi, 15:09
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 15:03
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 14:55
Re: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), mazieres, 14:50
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:48
Re: In support of Sender ID, Daniel Senie, 14:47
Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Max Kanat-Alexander, 14:46
Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Yakov Shafranovich, 14:44
Re: If not Sender I.D., then what? (Was Re: In support of Sender ID), Andrew Newton, 14:41
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Douglas Otis, 14:38
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, mazieres, 14:34
consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton, 14:33
(Deploy) In support of Sender ID, Steven Carbone, 14:32
consensus call of RR prefix, Andrew Newton, 14:32
Extension of Sender ID working group last call, Andrew Newton, 14:29
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, George Schlossnagle, 14:20
Re: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), Yakov Shafranovich, 14:20
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 14:18
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 14:13
If not Sender I.D., then what? (Was Re: In support of Sender ID), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 14:13
RE: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), Scott Kitterman, 13:56
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 13:54
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 13:51
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 13:50
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Daniel Senie, 13:48
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 13:46
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 13:42
Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Daniel Quinlan, 13:41
Re: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), Mark Lentczner, 13:23
X-header for forwarding MTAs, Craig Taylor, 13:05
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 13:03
TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), Scott Kitterman, 13:00
DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Rand Wacker, 12:55
Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 12:51
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:48
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Ted Hardie, 12:30
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 12:16
Re: In support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:04
RE: In support of Sender ID, Thomas Gal, 12:03
Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 11:27
RE: In support of Sender ID, Leon Rishniw, 11:22
RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 11:20
Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 11:11
Re: DOC_BUG: -submitter processing, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:09
RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 11:08
RE: In support of SenderID, Ryan Malayter, 10:56
Re: In support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:54
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, David H. Lynch Jr., 10:51
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Graham Murray, 10:38
Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 10:25
RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 10:16
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 10:15
DOC_BUG: -submitter processing, Tony Finch, 10:11
TECH-OMISSION: -pra security considerations, Tony Finch, 10:00
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Jim Lyon, 09:56
Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 09:56
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, mazieres, 09:55
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09:47
RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Harry Katz, 09:40
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 09:37
In support of Sender ID, Leon Rishniw, 09:33
(DEPLOY) In Further Support of Sender ID, johnw, 09:21
RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matthew.van.Eerde, 09:19
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 09:15
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Jim Lyon, 08:54
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 08:54
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, J. Trevor Hughes, 08:01
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Tony Finch, 07:09
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Matthias Leisi, 06:39
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, wayne, 06:38
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matt Sergeant, 06:01
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael Hammer, 05:43
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Scott Kitterman, 05:43
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:04
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Alexey Melnikov, 03:36
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:29
SPF testing can be done against other addresses (Was: DEPLOY: Legal liability for creating bounces from forged messages, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:24
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matt Sergeant, 03:18
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 03:16
Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:05
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:54
Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:51
Re: The SSL license offer., David H. Lynch Jr., 02:46
RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Michael R. Brumm, 02:31
Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), David H. Lynch Jr., 02:24
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:40
Correction to: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., Nick Shelness, 00:31
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, gmc, 00:24

September 02, 2004

Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Meng Weng Wong, 23:42
DOC-BUG: SUBMITTER Spelling mistake, Yakov Shafranovich, 23:34
Re: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 23:18
DEPLOY: On the IPR debate, Yakov Shafranovich, 23:12
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Graham Murray, 22:56
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Graham Murray, 22:25
RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Michael R. Brumm, 21:48
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 20:07
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Douglas Otis, 19:50
Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 19:28
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, mazieres, 18:59
DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Chris Haynes, 18:51
PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Michael R. Brumm, 18:40
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 18:32
Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, wayne, 18:13
TECH-ERROR: versioning, Roy Badami, 18:08
Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Mark, 17:51
TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 17:49
RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harry Katz, 17:42
TECH-ERROR: versioning, Roy Badami, 17:34
Re: The SSL license offer., Andrew Newton, 17:16
Re: In support of SenderID, wayne, 17:01
DOC-BUG: use of 'header' instead of 'field', Roy Badami, 16:58
Re: In support of SenderID, Chris Haynes, 16:58
DEPLOY: Postfix MTA position, Wietse Venema, 16:54
Re: The SSL license offer., wayne, 16:53
TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Roy Badami, 16:42
RE: The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:12
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 16:05
RE: The SSL license offer., william(at)elan.net, 15:54
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 15:50
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 15:44
RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 15:12
RE: In support of SenderID, Ryan Malayter, 15:09
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, wayne, 15:08
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 15:06
Re: The SSL license offer., wayne, 15:02
[Deploy] VeriSign's support of Sender ID, Ong, Bruce, 14:39
Re: In support of SenderID, Paul Iadonisi, 14:36
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 14:27
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 14:20
Re: In support of SenderID, Mark C. Langston, 14:18
RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 14:12
In support of SenderID, Craig Taylor, 14:09
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 14:05
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 13:36
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Ryan Ordway, 13:30
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 13:30
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 13:28
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, James Couzens, 13:28
RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Ólafur Guðmundsson, 13:10
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, mazieres, 13:07
RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 13:01
RE: The SSL license offer., Paul Iadonisi, 12:57
The SSL license offer., Roy Badami, 12:57
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chuck Mead, 12:54
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:53
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 12:51
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 12:39
DEPLOY senderid is not the answer, Koen Martens, 12:37
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 12:33
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, terry, 12:24
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, jonathan . curtis, 12:20
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Chuck Mead, 12:14
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harry Katz, 12:11
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 12:08
RE: The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:05
Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 11:57
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 11:51
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Peter Bowyer, 11:46
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ken, 11:33
Re: TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Douglas Otis, 11:22
(DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, J. Trevor Hughes, 11:13
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 11:01
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 10:59
RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 10:52
Re: The SSL license offer., Guillaume Filion, 10:26
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ryan Ordway, 10:23
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 10:19
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 10:05
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 10:04
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ken, 09:54
DEPLOY: Conversation with MSFT regarding license, Matt Sergeant, 09:53
Re: Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:51
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:45
RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 09:27
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jeremy T. Bouse, 09:26
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:20
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 09:18
RE: Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:13
TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Scott Kitterman, 09:01
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 08:59
RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:59
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, jonathan . curtis, 08:59
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 08:57
The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:53
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 08:07
DEPLOY: personal testimony, Mark C. Langston, 07:52
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Shaun Bryant, 07:09
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Guillaume Filion, 07:01
Re: [DEPLOY] Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 06:51
DEPLOY: My testimony, Peter Bowyer, 06:28
Re: [DEPLOY] Motion to abandon Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 06:04
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hadmut Danisch, 05:44
[DEPLOY] Personal testimony, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 05:41
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Mark, 05:16
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chip Mefford, 05:14
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, terry, 04:53
DEPLOY: Apache projects unable to deploy Sender ID, Greg Stein, 02:14

September 01, 2004

Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, AccuSpam, 23:52
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Paul Iadonisi, 23:27
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 23:19
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, wayne, 22:52
Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Gordon Fecyk, 22:48
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 22:47
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 22:45
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 22:38
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 21:41
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 21:40
SenderID for the greater good?, AccuSpam, 21:22
Re: Sender-ID or SPF Classic, mazieres, 21:13
RE: DEPLOY: Resolving IPR issues, Ian Peter, 21:10
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 20:39
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 19:46
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, wayne, 19:13
Re: DEPLOY: A personal take on the IPR topic, wayne, 18:44
Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), wayne, 18:36
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, George Mitchell, 18:26
Sender-ID or SPF Classic, Chuck Mead, 17:33
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, mazieres, 17:18
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 16:28
Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Yakov Shafranovich, 15:57
Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 15:31
RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Paul Iadonisi, 14:56
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, mazieres, 14:48
DEPLOY: A personal take on the IPR topic, Mark Lentczner, 14:42
DEPLOY: Significant Sender ID license issues at universities, mazieres, 14:38
Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Alan Hodgson, 14:22
RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:11
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 12:01
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Koen Martens, 11:50
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Koen Martens, 11:43
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Yakov Shafranovich, 11:20
RE: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Paul Iadonisi, 11:16
RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Paul Iadonisi, 11:12
Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Kevin Peuhkurinen, 11:03
Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Alan Hodgson, 11:01
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 10:50
RE: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:15
RE: Microsoft Claimed IP, License Terms, etc., Harry Katz, 10:02
RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harry Katz, 09:55
RE: How IETF treats contributors, Jim Lyon, 07:08
Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 06:30
RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Ryan Malayter, 06:01
Re: How IETF treats contributors, william(at)elan.net, 00:45