Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 2004/09/30

• IPR issues bieng tested in court in Europe - and London, England is the worlds biggest hub, jpinkerton, 2004/09/30

Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 2004/09/29

• Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/29
  • Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/29

Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/28

• RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 2004/09/28
  • RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/28
    • RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 2004/09/28

Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27

• Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/27
  • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27
    • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/27
• Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 2004/09/28
  • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/28
  • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Justin Mason, 2004/09/28
    • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/28
  • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/28
    • Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/28

Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27

• RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/27
  • RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27
    • Re: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Hector Santos, 2004/09/27
    • Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Alternative draft for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27
• RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/27
  • RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/27
  • OT: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, terry, 2004/09/27

RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/27

• Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/27
• Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), wayne, 2004/09/27
  • Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 2004/09/27
    • Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Marshall Rose, 2004/09/27
• RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/27
  • Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/27

Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 2004/09/25

• Re: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Greg Connor, 2004/09/25
• RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), John Glube, 2004/09/27
  • RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/27
• RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (forwarded by request), Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/25

[On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/24

• RE: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/25
  • Re: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, John Levine, 2004/09/26
    • Re: [On Rewriting SMTP and DNS] RE: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Graham Murray, 2004/09/26

WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/22

• WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/22
  • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 2004/09/22
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Dave Crocker, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Tony Finch, 2004/09/24
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Wietse Venema, 2004/09/24
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Hector Santos, 2004/09/24
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Graeme Leith, 2004/09/24
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Rand Wacker, 2004/09/24
    • "Wasted" CSV-DNA lookups, John Leslie, 2004/09/25
  • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/23
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/23
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/28
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/29
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with legacy SPF records?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/30
  • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Alan DeKok, 2004/09/23
    • Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/23

The Crystal Ball Says..., Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/22

• The Village Idiot's point of view (Re: The Crystal Ball Says...), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/23

Disappointed, Greg Connor, 2004/09/22

• Re: Disappointed, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/22
  • RE: Disappointed, Ian Peter, 2004/09/22
  • Re: Disappointed, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/22
• Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 2004/09/22
• RE: Disappointed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/22
  • RE: Disappointed, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/22
  • Re: Disappointed, Hector Santos, 2004/09/22
  • Re: Disappointed, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/24
• RE: Disappointed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/24
  • Re: Disappointed, Wietse Venema, 2004/09/24
  • Re: ITU, was Disappointed, John Levine, 2004/09/24

A Note of Appreciation, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/22

• Re: A Note of Appreciation, wayne, 2004/09/22
  • Re: A Note of Appreciation, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/22
  • Re: A Note of Appreciation, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/23
• RE: A Note of Appreciation, John Glube, 2004/09/22
• RE: A Note of Appreciation, John Glube, 2004/09/22

MARID to close, Ted Hardie, 2004/09/22

• Re: MARID to close, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/22
  • Re: MARID to close, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/22
    • Re: MARID to close, mxcomp, 2004/09/22
    • Re: MARID to close, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/22
  • Re: MARID to close, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/22
• Re: MARID to close, wayne, 2004/09/22
  • Re: MARID to close, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/22
    • Re: MARID to close, Mark Baugher, 2004/09/22
    • RE: MARID to close, terry, 2004/09/22
    • RE: MARID to close, Rik van Riel, 2004/09/22
  • Re: MARID to close, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/22
    • Re: MARID to close, Michael Hammer, 2004/09/22
• Re: MARID to close, csm, 2004/09/22
• Re: MARID to close, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/22
• Re: MARID to close - Comments/Suggestions, Hector Santos, 2004/09/22
• RE: MARID to close, Markley, Mike, 2004/09/22
  • RE: MARID to close, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/22
  • Re: MARID to close, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/24
• Re: MARID to close, Mark, 2004/09/22

regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Andrew Newton, 2004/09/21

• Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", wayne, 2004/09/21
  • Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", John Levine, 2004/09/21
    • Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Hector Santos, 2004/09/22
• Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", wayne, 2004/09/21
• Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/22
• RE: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/21

Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/20

• Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/20
  • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/20
  • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/22
• Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF?, John Leslie, 2004/09/20

MARID Monday, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/20

• Re: MARID Monday, wayne, 2004/09/21
  • Re: MARID Monday, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/24

SenderID name in use by somebody else, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/19

• Re: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/19
• RE: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/20
  • Re: SenderID name in use by somebody else, Paul S. Brown, 2004/09/20
• RE: SenderID name in use by somebody else, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/20

Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications (Safe to Read Even If You Are Avoiding Reading the Patents), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/17

• Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications (Safe to Read Even If You Are Avoiding Reading the Patents), Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/18

IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, John Levine, 2004/09/17

• Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/18
  • Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Roy Badami, 2004/09/18
    • Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/18
    • Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Tony Finch, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should authenticate multiple identities, Claus Färber, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Why we should (not) authenticate multiple identities, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/18
    • Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/19
• RE: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/18
  • Re: IPR: analysis of Microsoft patent applications, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/18

Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/17

• Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/17
• Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, James Couzens, 2004/09/20
• Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, wayne, 2004/09/21
• Re: Existing implementation of SPF1 for Exchange 2000?, wayne, 2004/09/21

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, 2004/09/17

• 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, 2004/09/17

Moving on from the train wreck, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/17

• Re: Moving on from the train wreck, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/17
• Re: Moving on from the train wreck, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/17
  • migration strategy for "-all", Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/17
    • Re: migration strategy for "-all", David Woodhouse, 2004/09/17
• Re: Moving on from the train wreck, Tom Kistner, 2004/09/17

Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/16

• Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/17

IANAL and neither are you, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/16

• IANAL and neither are you, Roy Badami, 2004/09/21
• RE: IANAL and neither are you, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/21

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00.txt, Internet-Drafts, 2004/09/16

• TECH-DOC: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00.txt, Hector Santos, 2004/09/17

New drafts, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/16

• Re: New drafts, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/16
• draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/18
• Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/19
• Re: New drafts, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/20
• draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/22

AOL on Sender I.D.., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/15

• Re: AOL on Sender I.D.., Andrew Newton, 2004/09/16
  • Re: AOL on Sender I.D.., Carl Hutzler, 2004/09/16

DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15

• Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Graham Murray, 2004/09/15
  • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Mark, 2004/09/15
  • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., terry, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., terry, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., terry, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Alan DeKok, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Mark, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., Mark, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflagday., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Mark, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., Markus Stumpf, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflagday., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately representsaflag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediatelyrepresentsaflag day., Mark, 2004/09/15
• Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., wayne, 2004/09/15
  • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
• Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/15
  • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., terry, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Douglas Otis, 2004/09/15
• Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Rik van Riel, 2004/09/15
  • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Rik van Riel, 2004/09/15
    • Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Chuck Mead, 2004/09/15
• A&R BCP & Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/15
  • Re: A&R BCP & Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
• Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Markus Stumpf, 2004/09/15
  • Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (Was: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/20
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00 (Was: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Douglas Otis, 2004/09/20
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/20
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/20
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/20
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/21
    • Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/21

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, 2004/09/14

• 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, 2004/09/15
  • 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, 2004/09/16
    • 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, 2004/09/16
    • 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, 2004/09/16
    • Patent Application 683624, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/16
    • Re: Patent Application 683624, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/16
    • Re: Patent Application 683624, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/16
    • Re: Patent Application 683624, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/17

RE: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/14

• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 2004/09/14
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15

HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/14

• Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), John Leslie, 2004/09/14
  • RHSBLs (was Re: HELO, IPR, A&R ..., Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/14
• Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14
  • Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/14
    • Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY- IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/15
• HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/14
  • Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/14
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Jim Fenton, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/15
  • Re: HELO and Unified, Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/15
    • Re: HELO and Unified, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/15
    • ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/16
    • Re: ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Douglas Otis, 2004/09/17
    • SPF Archive?, Re: ANNOUNCE: I-D draft-ietf-marid-SPF3-00, etc., Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/17
  • Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/15
    • Re: MTAMARK and RFC 2317, was Re: HELO and Unified, Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: MTAMARK and RFC 2317, was Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/15

RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Danny Angus, 2004/09/14

• RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/14
  • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14

Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13

• RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/13
  • Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Patrik Fältström, 2004/09/14
    • Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/14
  • Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Eric A. Hall, 2004/09/15

Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13

• Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13

[Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/13

• Re: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/14
• RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/14
  • RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/14
  • RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14
    • RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/14

Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/13

• Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/13
  • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/13
  • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/13
  • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Ted Hardie, 2004/09/13
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 2004/09/13
    • RE: Work plan for Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/13
  • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Tony Finch, 2004/09/14
• Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 2004/09/13
  • PRA is dead. Media, nanae/nanabl.(was Re: Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/14
• Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/14
  • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/14
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 2004/09/14
    • RE: Interpreting "v=spf1", terry, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Margaret Olson, 2004/09/15
    • Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/15
    • Misinformation - Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 2004/09/14
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/14
    • Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/14

Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/13

• RE: What the lawyers and suits think, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/13
  • RE: What the lawyers and suits think, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13
  • Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/13
  • Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/13

RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/13

• RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13
• RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/13

Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13

• Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/13
  • Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13

TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/12

• Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/13
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/13
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/13
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Claus Färber, 2004/09/15
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
• RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/13
  • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/13
    • Message not available
    • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Pete Resnick, 2004/09/17
    • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/17
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Bill McQuillan, 2004/09/17
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/17
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Pete Resnick, 2004/09/18
  • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/13
  • RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/13
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/15
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/16

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., 2004/09/11

• Re: What the lawyers and suits think, jpinkerton, 2004/09/12
• 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, 2004/09/12
  • Re: What the lawyers and suits think, wayne, 2004/09/12
    • Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/12
• 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., 2004/09/13

co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/11

• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 2004/09/11
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/11
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/11
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/11
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/13
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/11
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Guillaume Filion, 2004/09/11
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/11
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/11
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, George Mitchell, 2004/09/11
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/12
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/11
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Eric A. Hall, 2004/09/12
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Peter Koch, 2004/09/12
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 2004/09/13
    • by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/14
    • Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/14
    • Re: by the numbers, wayne, 2004/09/14
    • Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/14
    • Re: by the numbers, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/17
    • Re: by the numbers, wayne, 2004/09/23
    • Re: by the numbers, Hector Santos, 2004/09/24
    • Re: by the numbers, wayne, 2004/09/24
    • Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/24
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Peter Koch, 2004/09/17
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/14
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/14
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/12
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/13
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/13
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/13
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Patrik Fältström, 2004/09/14
• Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/14
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Tony Finch, 2004/09/15
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/15
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/15
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/15
    • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/15
  • Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Rik van Riel, 2004/09/15

Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/11

• Re: [Asrg] Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/11
• Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, wayne, 2004/09/11
• Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Marshall Rose, 2004/09/11

Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10

• Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10

I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/10

• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/10
  • Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy, 2004/09/13
    • Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/16
    • Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Hector Santos, 2004/09/16

Conclusion of Last Call?, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/10

• Re: Conclusion of Last Call?, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/10

clarification on consensus call for compromise, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/09

• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/09
  • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Ted Hardie, 2004/09/09
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 2004/09/09
    • Message not available
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 2004/09/09
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/09
• RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 2004/09/10
  • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Benjamin Franz, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/10
    • RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/10
    • RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
  • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 2004/09/10
  • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
  • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
    • Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
• Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 2004/09/13

SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 2004/09/09

• Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/09
• Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/09
  • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/11
  • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Michael Hammer, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Patrik Fältström, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/10
    • All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/10
    • All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
    • All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
    • Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/13
    • Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/14
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/09
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/09
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/09
    • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/09
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/09
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/09
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/09
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/09
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/09
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/09
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/10
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/10
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/12
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/13
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/15
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/15
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/15
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/16
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/16
    • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/16
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Mark, 2004/09/16
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/16
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers - Fixing RFC 2821 issues, Hector Santos, 2004/09/16
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/17
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/18
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/18
    • Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Alan DeKok, 2004/09/18
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Chris Haynes, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Chris Haynes, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Dave Crocker, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/19
    • Re: Trust, and who knows what (was Re: SPF abused by spammers ), Dave Crocker, 2004/09/19
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/12
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/10
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/11
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 2004/09/11
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/12
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/13
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/13
• RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/13
  • RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/13
• Re: SPF abused by spammers, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/14
  • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/14
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 2004/09/15
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/15
    • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/16
  • Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/14

DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 2004/09/08

• Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Mark, 2004/09/09
• Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, AccuSpam, 2004/09/09
• Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/09
  • Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 2004/09/09
    • Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/09

Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/08

• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10

consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08

• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Guillaume Filion, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 2004/09/09
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Jim Fenton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Koen Martens, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Wietse Venema, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tripp Cox, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Peter Koch, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/09
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Hector Santos, 2004/09/08
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/08
  • RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/10
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/10
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, mazieres, 2004/09/08
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/10
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/09
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/09
    • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Danny Angus, 2004/09/09
• Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/10
• RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 2004/09/10
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/10
    • RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 2004/09/10
  • Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark, 2004/09/10
  • RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 2004/09/10
• RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 2004/09/10
  • RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 2004/09/10
  • RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 2004/09/10

DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 2004/09/08

• RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/09
  • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/10
    • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 2004/09/10
  • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 2004/09/10
    • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
    • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Mark, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 2004/09/10
• RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/10
• RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/10
  • RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 2004/09/10
• RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/10

TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/07

• Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, wayne, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Margaret Olson, 2004/09/08
• RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Sauer, Damon, 2004/09/08
• RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Nate Leon, 2004/09/08
  • RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/08

[no subject], Robin Cover, 2004/09/07

• Re:, Ted Hardie, 2004/09/07

TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07

• Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/07

TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07

• Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/13

TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07

• TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 2004/09/08
  • Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/07

TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07

• TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
• RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 2004/09/07
  • RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Carl S. Gutekunst, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/07
  • RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/08
• RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07

RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07

• RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/07
• RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/07
• RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/07
  • Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07

[DOCBUG] -submitter, 5.3, Matthias Leisi, 2004/09/06

• RE: [DOCBUG] -submitter, 5.3, Harry Katz, 2004/09/07

TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, John Levine, 2004/09/06

• Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
• Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
• TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/06
    • RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, David Woodhouse, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
    • DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], wayne, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Mark, 2004/09/09
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], gmc, 2004/09/08
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/10
    • Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/10
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/08
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Hector Santos, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 2004/09/06
• Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 2004/09/06
• Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
    • RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 2004/09/06
    • RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/06
  • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/07
    • Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 2004/09/07

[DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Matthias Leisi, 2004/09/06

• Re: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
• Re: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Tripp Cox, 2004/09/06
• RE: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/06

DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, Peter Koch, 2004/09/05

• Re: DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, mazieres, 2004/09/05
• Re: DOC-BUG/TECH-OMISSION in -protocol: A vs AAAA, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/06

DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04

• DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
• DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07

DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04

• Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, mazieres, 2004/09/04
  • Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
• DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 2004/09/07
  • Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, mazieres, 2004/09/07
• RE: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Harry Katz, 2004/09/07

TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04

• Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/04
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/04

[Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Tripp Cox, 2004/09/04

• RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/06
  • Message not available
    • RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/06

Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/04

• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/05
  • Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/05
  • Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/05

RE: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/03

• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/09/04
• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Koen Martens, 2004/09/04
• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/04
  • Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/05
    • OT: Forgery on moderated lists, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/05

RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adapt ive threats, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/03

• Re: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/04
• RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adapt ive threats, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/04
  • RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defense against adaptive threats, terry, 2004/09/04
    • RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defense against adaptive threats, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/05

DOC-BUG: Security considerations for parsing records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03

• Re: DOC-BUG: Security considerations for parsing records, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
  • Issues raised in comments by Steve Belovin from January 2004, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
    • Re: Issues raised in comments by Steve Belovin from January 2004, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/04

consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/03

• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/03
    • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/03
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, mazieres, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Wietse Venema, 2004/09/03
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/03
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
• RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, terry, 2004/09/03
  • RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, terry, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Graham Murray, 2004/09/03
• consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/04
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/04
• RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Dave Crocker, 2004/09/05
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, wayne, 2004/09/05
  • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, mazieres, 2004/09/06
    • Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
• Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/07

consensus call of RR prefix, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/03

• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/03
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Roy Badami, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Peter Koch, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 2004/09/06
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/08
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Frank Ellermann, 2004/09/10
    • Re: RR sizes, was consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 2004/09/06
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/03
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/05
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 2004/09/13
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/13
    • Re: the TCP argument again, consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 2004/09/14
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, mazieres, 2004/09/03
• RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/03
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, gmc, 2004/09/04
• RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 2004/09/04
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Matthias Leisi, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/07
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, jpinkerton, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 2004/09/05
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Bill McQuillan, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/06
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, jpinkerton, 2004/09/06
• RR prefix is not useful, John Levine, 2004/09/04
  • Re: RR prefix is not useful, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/04
    • Re: RR prefix is not useful, John R Levine, 2004/09/04
    • Re: RR prefix is not useful, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/04
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/04
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, terry, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/05
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 2004/09/05
    • RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/07
    • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/05
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/04
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/04
• RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/04
• Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/07
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/07
  • Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/07
• RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/06
• RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/07

Extension of Sender ID working group last call, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/03

• Re: Extension of Sender ID working group last call, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04

If not Sender I.D., then what? (Was Re: In support of Sender ID), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/03

• Re: If not Sender I.D., then what? (Was Re: In support of Sender ID), Andrew Newton, 2004/09/03

X-header for forwarding MTAs, Craig Taylor, 2004/09/03

• Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
• Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Max Kanat-Alexander, 2004/09/03
• Message not available
  • Re: X-header for forwarding MTAs, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/03

DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03

• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Daniel Quinlan, 2004/09/03
• Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardization of SPF Classic, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/03

DOC_BUG: -submitter processing, Tony Finch, 2004/09/03

• Re: DOC_BUG: -submitter processing, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03

In support of Sender ID, Leon Rishniw, 2004/09/03

• Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
• RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/03
  • Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
    • Re: In support of Sender ID, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/03
  • Re: In support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
    • Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
• RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/03
  • Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
• RE: In support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/03
• RE: In support of Sender ID, Leon Rishniw, 2004/09/03
  • Re: In support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
    • Re: In support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
• RE: In support of Sender ID, Thomas Gal, 2004/09/03

Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/03

• Re: DOC-BUG: permitted use of PRA/submitter address, mazieres, 2004/09/03

Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), David H. Lynch Jr., 2004/09/03

• Re: Unencumbered Checking (was Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/03

DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/02

• Re: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/02
  • RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/03
• RE: DEPLOY: Sender-ID provides little or no defence against adaptive threats, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/03

PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/02

• Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/02
  • RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/02
• Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Alexey Melnikov, 2004/09/03
  • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/09/03
    • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Matthias Leisi, 2004/09/03
• RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/03
  • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 2004/09/03
  • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, mazieres, 2004/09/03
  • RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
  • RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
• RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/03
  • TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/03
    • 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, 2004/09/03
    • 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, 2004/09/03
    • 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, 2004/09/03
    • Re: TECH-OMMISSION: Time Phasing Rules For Records Not Included In Core and Protocol (was RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?), mazieres, 2004/09/03
  • RE: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03
    • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, mazieres, 2004/09/03
    • Re: PRA Patent: License for Display in MUAs?, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/03

Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, wayne, 2004/09/02

• Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Graham Murray, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/03
• Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Ted Hardie, 2004/09/03
  • Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/03
  • Re: Obstacles between us and the finish line, wayne, 2004/09/05

TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 2004/09/02

• Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/03
• Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Tony Finch, 2004/09/03
  • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Tony Finch, 2004/09/05
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 2004/09/05
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 2004/09/05
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/05
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 2004/09/05
    • RE: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, terry, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 2004/09/06
    • RE: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, terry, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Graham Murray, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Alan DeKok, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/06
    • Re: TECH-ERROR/DOC-BUG: empty fields in -pra, Roy Badami, 2004/09/06

TECH-ERROR: versioning, Roy Badami, 2004/09/02

• TECH-ERROR: versioning, Roy Badami, 2004/09/02

TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Roy Badami, 2004/09/02

• Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Mark, 2004/09/02
• Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/03
  • Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/03
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 2004/09/03
    • Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/03
• Re: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, wayne, 2004/09/03
• RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Matthew.van.Eerde, 2004/09/03
• RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Harry Katz, 2004/09/03
  • RE: TECH-ERROR: Name of SUBMITTER parameter, Roy Badami, 2004/09/04

In support of SenderID, Craig Taylor, 2004/09/02

• Re: In support of SenderID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/02
• Re: In support of SenderID, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/02
• RE: In support of SenderID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/02
  • Re: In support of SenderID, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/02
  • Re: In support of SenderID, wayne, 2004/09/02
• RE: In support of SenderID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/03

RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Ólafur Guðmundsson, 2004/09/02

• RE: TECH-ERROR: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/02

(DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, J. Trevor Hughes, 2004/09/02

• Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/02
  • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, mazieres, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Graham Murray, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/02
• Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02
  • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/02
• Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/02
  • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/02
• Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael Hammer, 2004/09/03
  • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, J. Trevor Hughes, 2004/09/03
• RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/02
  • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/02
  • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/02
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/02
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Graham Murray, 2004/09/02
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Meng Weng Wong, 2004/09/02
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Daniel Senie, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, George Schlossnagle, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/03
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/03
    • DEPLOY, jpinkerton, 2004/09/05
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/06
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Douglas Otis, 2004/09/03
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/03
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/03
    • RE: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Mark, 2004/09/03
    • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, Matt Sergeant, 2004/09/06
  • Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, wayne, 2004/09/02
• Re: (DEPLOY) In Support of Sender ID, gmc, 2004/09/03
• (Deploy) In support of Sender ID, Steven Carbone, 2004/09/03

RE: Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02

• Re: Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02

TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Scott Kitterman, 2004/09/02

• Re: TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Douglas Otis, 2004/09/02
• RE: TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Harry Katz, 2004/09/07

The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02

• The SSL license offer., Roy Badami, 2004/09/02
• RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/02
  • Re: The SSL license offer., Guillaume Filion, 2004/09/02
    • Re: The SSL license offer., David H. Lynch Jr., 2004/09/03
  • Re: The SSL license offer., wayne, 2004/09/02
• RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/02
• RE: The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02
  • RE: The SSL license offer., Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/02
• RE: The SSL license offer., Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/02
  • RE: The SSL license offer., william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/02
    • Re: The SSL license offer., wayne, 2004/09/02
  • Re: The SSL license offer., Andrew Newton, 2004/09/02
• RE: The SSL license offer., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02

DEPLOY: personal testimony, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/02

• [DEPLOY] personal testimony, Matthias Leisi, 2004/09/05

Sender-ID or SPF Classic, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/01

• Re: Sender-ID or SPF Classic, mazieres, 2004/09/01

Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 2004/09/01

• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, mazieres, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, wayne, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Mark C. Langston, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chip Mefford, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, George Mitchell, 2004/09/01
  • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 2004/09/01
  • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, terry, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/01
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Mark, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hadmut Danisch, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 2004/09/02
• Re: [DEPLOY] Motion to abandon Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/02
  • Re: [DEPLOY] Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Guillaume Filion, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jeremy T. Bouse, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/01
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, AccuSpam, 2004/09/01
  • Another Rambus, Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Gordon Fecyk, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, wayne, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 2004/09/02
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Shaun Bryant, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, jonathan . curtis, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/02
  • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ryan Ordway, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Jonathan Gardner, 2004/09/02
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02
  • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Dean Anderson, 2004/09/04
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ken, 2004/09/02
  • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/02
    • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Ken, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Peter Bowyer, 2004/09/02
    • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Michel Bouissou, 2004/09/02
    • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, terry, 2004/09/02
    • RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Rand Wacker, 2004/09/02
• Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harold A'Hole, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, mazieres, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, James Couzens, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, David H. Lynch Jr., 2004/09/03
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Sam Varshavchik, 2004/09/03
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harry Katz, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chuck Mead, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chris Haynes, 2004/09/06
    • Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/06
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, jonathan . curtis, 2004/09/02
• RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harry Katz, 2004/09/07

DEPLOY: A personal take on the IPR topic, Mark Lentczner, 2004/09/01

• Re: DEPLOY: A personal take on the IPR topic, wayne, 2004/09/01
  • RE: DEPLOY: Resolving IPR issues, Ian Peter, 2004/09/01

RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/01

• Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Alan Hodgson, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
    • Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), wayne, 2004/09/01
• RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/01
• RE: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/02

RE: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 2004/09/01

• Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Alan Hodgson, 2004/09/01
  • Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Koen Martens, 2004/09/01
• Re: Updated Sender-ID License Faq (was acceptable use), Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/01
• RE: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/01
• Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.), Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01

RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Ryan Malayter, 2004/09/01

• Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 2004/09/01
• RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harry Katz, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 2004/09/01
  • RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Paul Iadonisi, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Yakov Shafranovich, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Koen Martens, 2004/09/01
  • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, mazieres, 2004/09/01
• RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, Harry Katz, 2004/09/02
  • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, mazieres, 2004/09/02
    • Re: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing, wayne, 2004/09/02

Re: How IETF treats contributors, william(at)elan.net, 2004/09/01

• RE: How IETF treats contributors, Jim Lyon, 2004/09/01