IETF SMTP (date)
April 30, 2007
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 20:35
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains, Frank Ellermann, 19:34
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, David F. Skoll, 18:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains, John C Klensin, 17:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 17:01
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, John C Klensin, 16:55
- Re: new issue: non-2606 domains, SM, 16:47
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, SM, 16:46
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 16:02
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:43
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:43
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains, Frank Ellermann, 15:41
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 15:18
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John Leslie, 15:02
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John Leslie, 14:38
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 14:22
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, David F. Skoll, 14:14
- Re: General-Address-Literal, Frank Ellermann, 13:49
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John C Klensin, 13:36
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, Frank Ellermann, 13:28
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, David F. Skoll, 11:00
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 25: Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John C Klensin, 10:42
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John C Klensin, 10:39
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, ned+ietf-smtp, 10:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 35: remove source routes from example D.3, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09:53
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John Leslie, 09:22
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, David F. Skoll, 08:59
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, Kari Hurtta, 08:35
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, David F. Skoll, 08:24
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 35: remove source routes from example D.3, John C Klensin, 08:10
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Mark E. Mallett, 08:06
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John Leslie, 08:01
- Re: 2821bis-03, John Leslie, 08:00
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 07:47
- Re: 2821bis-03, Jeff Macdonald, 07:38
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 34: non-2606 domains, John C Klensin, 07:36
- new issue: remove source routes from example D.3, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:43
- new issue: non-2606 domains, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:42
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, John C Klensin, 06:18
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, John C Klensin, 06:05
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, David F. Skoll, 05:56
- RFC2821 advancement -- implementation reports, Dave Crocker, 05:49
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, John C Klensin, 05:19
- Re: General-Address-Literal (was: Issue list), John C Klensin, 05:06
- Re: Retries - may be related to closed issue 12 4yz behavior, John C Klensin, 04:32
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Frank Ellermann, 03:11
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 7: Use of 2119 definitions for conformity language, Frank Ellermann, 02:32
- Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 30: Deprecate use of source routes completely and remove text, Frank Ellermann, 02:19
- Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", Frank Ellermann, 01:58
- Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann, 01:57
- Retries - may be related to closed issue 12 4yz behavior, Hector Santos, 01:50
- Re: "for" clause on Received: header field, Frank Ellermann, 01:38
- Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 30: Deprecate use of source routes completely and remove text, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:32
April 29, 2007
- "for" clause on Received: header field (Re: General-Address-Literal (was: Issue list)), Kari Hurtta, 23:35
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Frank Ellermann, 23:30
- General-Address-Literal (was: Issue list), Frank Ellermann, 22:39
- Re: Issue list, Tony Hansen, 22:08
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 7: Use of 2119 definitions for conformity language, Tony Hansen, 21:43
- Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 30: Deprecate use of source routes completely and remove text, Tony Hansen, 21:12
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Hector Santos, 21:03
- Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", Tony Hansen, 20:54
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Tony Hansen, 20:53
- Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Tony Hansen, 20:46
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", John C Klensin, 20:46
- Re: Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, John C Klensin, 20:43
- Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Tony Hansen, 20:38
- Re: Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Hector Santos, 20:34
- Recap: Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Tony Hansen, 20:18
- Recap Issues 0b/21/25, Tony Hansen, 19:45
- Editorial ABNF oddities (was: 2821bis-03: Receive line From-domain Address-literal usage), Frank Ellermann, 14:34
April 28, 2007
- Re: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-03.txt: For -rule, John C Klensin, 19:56
- Re: 2821bis-03: Receive line From-domain Address-literal usage, Hector Santos, 19:49
- draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-03.txt: For -rule, Kari Hurtta, 11:40
- rfc2821bis status report, John C Klensin, 11:06
- Re: 2821bis-03: Receive line From-domain Address-literal usage, John C Klensin, 09:26
April 27, 2007
- 2821bis-03: Receive line From-domain Address-literal usage, Hector Santos, 21:47
- Re: Re[2]: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, John C Klensin, 15:28
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 33: SMTP-Sender, etc., Frank Ellermann, 15:16
- Re[2]: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Chris Haynes, 14:19
- Re: Issue list, John C Klensin, 13:28
- Re: Issue list, John C Klensin, 13:28
- Re: Issue list, Frank Ellermann, 11:55
- Re: 2821bis-03, John Leslie, 11:11
- MUST NOT reject [was: 2821bis-03], Frank Ellermann, 11:10
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 33: SMTP-Sender, etc., John C Klensin, 10:57
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, Frank Ellermann, 08:51
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, John C Klensin, 07:12
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Alexey Melnikov, 03:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, Hector Santos, 02:49
- Re: 2821bis-03, Philip Guenther, 01:42
April 26, 2007
- Re: rfc2821bis-3 nits and typos, Frank Ellermann, 23:58
- Re: 2821bis-03, Frank Ellermann, 23:34
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, John C Klensin, 22:13
- Fwd: draft-resnick-2822upd-01 posted, Pete Resnick, 22:12
- Re: Issue list, John C Klensin, 21:53
- Re: Issue list, Hector Santos, 21:40
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, Pete Resnick, 21:39
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Hector Santos, 20:49
- Issue list, John C Klensin, 20:48
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, Frank Ellermann, 20:46
- Re: 2821bis-03, John C Klensin, 20:27
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Frank Ellermann, 20:24
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Frank Ellermann, 19:56
- Re: rfc2821bis-3 nits and typos, John C Klensin, 19:54
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Frank Ellermann, 19:42
- 2821bis-03, Frank Ellermann, 19:21
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 22: Return-path required removal, John C Klensin, 13:37
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Hector Santos, 10:32
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", David F. Skoll, 09:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", David F. Skoll, 09:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Dave Crocker, 09:45
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Hector Santos, 09:38
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Peter J. Holzer, 09:29
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Dave Crocker, 09:17
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", David F. Skoll, 08:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", David F. Skoll, 08:29
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Hector Santos, 08:28
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Jeff Macdonald, 08:04
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Hector Santos, 08:01
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", David F. Skoll, 07:29
- Re: rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", Jeff Macdonald, 07:17
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Jeff Macdonald, 07:16
- Re: rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, Chris Haynes, 06:53
- rfc2821bis-03 Issue 32: "MUST take responsibility", John C Klensin, 06:50
- Re: 2821bis-03 comments, John C Klensin, 05:53
- rfc2821bis-03: Issue 31: Retain new FTP comparison text in 4.2.1, John C Klensin, 05:39
- 2821bis-03 comments, Hector Santos, 00:43
April 24, 2007
- Updated status on 2821bis 4/24, Tony Hansen, 22:09
- General-Address-Literal (was: rfc2821bis-02 Issue 24), Frank Ellermann, 14:55
- Re: rfc2821bis-02 Issue 24, John C Klensin, 13:52
- Re: rfc2821bis-02 Issue 24, Hector Santos, 12:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-02 Issue 24 (was: Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 11:26
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code, ned+ietf-smtp, 10:09
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code, Hector Santos, 09:12
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Frank Ellermann, 09:06
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27 (and 28): Received clauses, John C Klensin, 08:45
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 08:18
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 24: ABNF overhaul, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:55
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 24: ABNF overhaul, Dave Crocker, 05:40
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Dave Crocker, 05:32
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Paul Overell, 05:05
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Frank Ellermann, 04:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Frank Ellermann, 04:18
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:17
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code, Frank Ellermann, 03:43
April 23, 2007
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Pete Resnick, 23:52
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Kari Hurtta, 23:25
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Tony Hansen, 20:08
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Pete Resnick, 19:50
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code, Tony Hansen, 19:45
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Robert A. Rosenberg, 19:12
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Bruce Lilly, 18:28
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), ned+ietf-smtp, 17:36
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 30: Deprecate use of source routes completely and remove text, John C Klensin, 16:37
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Philip Guenther, 16:18
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 28: Client behavior on unrecognized reply code (was: Re: New issue...), John C Klensin, 16:11
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 16:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 15:54
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Hansen, 15:11
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 15:04
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 14:41
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Hector Santos, 14:29
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Claus Assmann, 14:02
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 13:58
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:45
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Philip Guenther, 13:26
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:21
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), David F. Skoll, 13:18
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Hector Santos, 12:54
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Hansen, 12:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Hansen, 12:26
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Hector Santos, 11:49
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 11:49
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses, Pete Resnick, 11:47
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Jeff Macdonald, 11:42
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), David F. Skoll, 10:45
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 10:18
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09:32
- Re: New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), ned+ietf-smtp, 09:27
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, ned+ietf-smtp, 07:46
- New issue (was Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), David F. Skoll, 07:29
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 06:06
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 04:59
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos, 04:32
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 03:01
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 02:43
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, John C Klensin, 02:21
April 22, 2007
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Hansen, 22:56
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos, 21:43
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 19:50
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 19:09
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann, 18:48
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Frank Ellermann, 18:27
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 25: Conditions for non-delivery notification messages, Frank Ellermann, 18:24
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 17:24
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 17:15
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 26: Source routes, especially reverse-paths, John C Klensin, 16:22
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Peter J. Holzer, 16:21
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 25: Conditions for non-delivery notification messages, Hector Santos, 16:15
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 21: Re: Section 6.2 - favoring reject over bounce, Tony Hansen, 16:03
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos, 16:01
- Re: Registration rules for extensions, Frank Ellermann, 15:56
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 15:39
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 26: Source routes, especially reverse-paths, Frank Ellermann, 15:33
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, John C Klensin, 15:08
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 26: Source routes, especially reverse-paths, Tony Finch, 15:00
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 21: Re: Section 6.2 - favoring reject over bounce, John C Klensin, 14:55
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 14:54
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", SM, 14:47
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", Frank Ellermann, 14:44
- Nitpicking typos (was: Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 14:35
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 26: Source routes, especially reverse-paths, John C Klensin, 14:25
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 24: ABNF overhaul, Frank Ellermann, 14:15
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 25: Conditions for non-delivery notification messages, John C Klensin, 13:58
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:57
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Frank Ellermann, 13:39
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 24: ABNF overhaul, John C Klensin, 13:17
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", John C Klensin, 13:06
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:03
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 12:33
- Registration rules for extensions (was: Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), John C Klensin, 12:31
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 21: Re: Section 6.2 - favoring reject over bounce, Frank Ellermann, 12:27
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Peter J. Holzer, 12:26
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 12:24
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 12:20
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann, 12:19
- Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", Frank Ellermann, 12:09
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Frank Ellermann, 11:36
- "for" clause on Received: header field (Re: rfc2821bis-02 is out), Kari Hurtta, 10:42
- Received: -header field -- for -clause, Kari Hurtta, 10:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Kari Hurtta, 10:41
- RFC2821bis-02 Issue 23: Definitions in Section 2.3 and "command", John C Klensin, 08:22
April 17, 2007
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 16:03
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Frank Ellermann, 12:42
- Re: recap of 2821bis-01 closed issues, Frank Ellermann, 11:26
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 1: Format of domain - trailing period, Frank Ellermann, 10:52
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 5: Sect 4.4. Syntax of ID in trace: needs confirmation, Frank Ellermann, 10:11
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 1: Format of domain - trailing period, John C Klensin, 04:32
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 1: Format of domain - trailing period, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 03:53
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 1: Format of domain - trailing period, John C Klensin, 03:14
- Re: Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 5: Sect 4.4. Syntax of ID in trace: needs confirmation, Tony Finch, 00:33
April 16, 2007
- Recap: 2821bis-01 Postponed Issues, Tony Hansen, 21:24
- Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 8: text on transactions/recipients per connection, Tony Hansen, 21:22
- Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 5: Sect 4.4. Syntax of ID in trace: needs confirmation, Tony Hansen, 21:11
- Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO validation in sect 4.1.4, para 6, Tony Hansen, 21:07
- Recap: 2821bis-01 Issue 1: Format of domain - trailing period, Tony Hansen, 21:04
- recap of 2821bis-01 closed issues, Tony Hansen, 10:47
April 13, 2007
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John Leslie, 15:10
- Re: rfc2181bis-01 Issue 20: General security considerations overhaul, Frank Ellermann, 13:52
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 13:29
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 12:42
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 11:20
- rfc2181bis-01 Issue 20: General security considerations overhaul, John C Klensin, 11:14
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Peter J. Holzer, 09:55
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John Leslie, 07:21
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Alexey Melnikov, 05:11
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Peter J. Holzer, 00:49
April 12, 2007
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Robert A. Rosenberg, 14:45
- Re: Explained-literal, Frank Ellermann, 13:32
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 12:48
- Re: Explained-literal, Tony Finch, 12:15
- rfc2821bis-01 Issue 19: Explanatory text after literal in EHLO (was: Explained-literal), John C Klensin, 12:11
- rfc2821bis-01 Issue 19: Explanatory text after literal in EHLO (was: Explained-literal), John C Klensin, 12:08
- Re: Explained-literal, John C Klensin, 11:57
- Use of code 421 (was: Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code), John C Klensin, 11:49
- Re: Explained-literal, Mark E. Mallett, 11:43
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Lisa Dusseault, 11:28
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 11:25
- Re: Explained-literal, Tony Finch, 11:21
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Jeff Macdonald, 11:17
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Lisa Dusseault, 11:11
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: multiline reply codes, John C Klensin, 10:51
- Explained-literal, Mark E. Mallett, 10:33
- Re: Window of opportunity, Tony Hansen, 10:00
- Window of opportunity (was: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies), Frank Ellermann, 09:41
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, and Issue 17: multiline reply codes, Tony Hansen, 08:30
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 08:15
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 07:50
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 06:08
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 05:38
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Peter J. Holzer, 03:27
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:29
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:29
April 11, 2007
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 20:04
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, John C Klensin, 20:04
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, Jeff Macdonald, 18:42
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions, SM, 17:38
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions, SM, 17:17
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 16:34
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, SM, 16:21
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 15:40
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, John C Klensin, 15:33
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 15:18
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Claus Assmann, 15:01
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 14:56
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 14:53
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, ned+ietf-smtp, 14:48
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Claus Assmann, 14:43
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Jeff Macdonald, 13:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, Jeff Macdonald, 13:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 13:45
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:25
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 13:16
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 13:15
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Frank Ellermann, 13:00
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 12:59
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 12:58
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, David F. Skoll, 12:52
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions, Hector Santos, 12:51
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 12:50
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions, Frank Ellermann, 12:34
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Chris Newman, 12:29
- Re: recap rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Hansen, 12:29
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions, Frank Ellermann, 12:25
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 12:20
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 11:54
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, John C Klensin, 11:53
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, John C Klensin, 11:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 11:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 11:34
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 11:15
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Frank Ellermann, 11:12
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, Hector Santos, 11:04
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 10:46
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, Frank Ellermann, 10:34
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Finch, 09:45
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 09:07
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 08:57
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 08:34
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Philip Guenther, 07:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 07:19
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Philip Guenther, 07:13
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, Tony Finch, 06:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 06:49
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Alexey Melnikov, 06:44
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Philip Guenther, 06:41
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 06:40
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies -- proposed text, John C Klensin, 06:38
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 06:36
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 06:33
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 06:20
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 05:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 05:37
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 05:36
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 05:35
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, John C Klensin, 05:13
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 04:26
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 04:26
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 04:21
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Finch, 04:12
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Frank Ellermann, 00:14
April 10, 2007
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions (was: Re: IPv6), SM, 23:19
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Tony Hansen, 20:47
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 19:59
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 18:33
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, John C Klensin, 17:45
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, David F. Skoll, 16:41
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:45
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:44
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 15:39
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, william(at)elan.net, 15:02
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Frank Ellermann, 14:30
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Hansen, 14:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 14:02
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, william(at)elan.net, 14:01
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, David F. Skoll, 13:57
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Alexey Melnikov, 13:55
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 13:28
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Hansen, 12:43
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 12:39
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, David F. Skoll, 12:32
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 12:06
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 11:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, David F. Skoll, 11:08
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Frank Ellermann, 10:58
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 10:45
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Hector Santos, 10:43
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Hector Santos, 10:33
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 09:53
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Hansen, 09:23
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Alexey Melnikov, 09:10
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Tony Finch, 09:00
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, Tony Finch, 08:57
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Tony Finch, 08:50
- Section 4.2.1 3yz - should send another command, Jeff Macdonald, 08:49
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Alexey Melnikov, 08:47
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, Jeff Macdonald, 08:41
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Tony Finch, 08:40
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 08:22
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, David F. Skoll, 08:22
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Alexey Melnikov, 08:13
- rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies, John C Klensin, 07:58
- rfc2821bis-01 Issue 17: all contination lines must use same code, John C Klensin, 07:54
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 07:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, John C Klensin, 07:33
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 07:21
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, John C Klensin, 06:16
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Finch, 05:38
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 04:54
- 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 04:42
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Finch, 04:21
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 04:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Finch, 03:14
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 02:42
April 09, 2007
- Re: Conflicting Enhanced Status Codes between RFC 4468 and draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis, Tony Hansen, 23:08
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 16: General "is permitted"/ "is not permitted" language, Dave Crocker, 09:16
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 16: General "is permitted"/ "is not permitted" language, Jeff Macdonald, 07:57
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 05:33
April 07, 2007
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Hansen, 17:13
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 16:10
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, John C Klensin, 09:09
- RFC2821bis-01 Issue 16: General "is permitted"/ "is not permitted" language, John C Klensin, 08:31
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 08:25
April 06, 2007
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Hector Santos, 22:25
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies, Tony Hansen, 20:51
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting, John C Klensin, 16:24
- Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies (was: Re: 2821bis server reply ABNF), Tony Finch, 16:08
- rfc2821bis-01 Issue 14 Continuation of 222 greeting and Issue 15 syntax for multiline replies (was: Re: 2821bis server reply ABNF), John C Klensin, 16:08
April 03, 2007
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 4: Client actions on receipt of 4yz and 5yz codes, John Leslie, 18:19
- 2821 Dot-string (was: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 5: Syntax of ID clause in Received trace header), Frank Ellermann, 09:30
- Re: TINW was RFC2821b is-01 Issue 1: trailing dot in Domain, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:28
- Re: TINW was RFC2821b is-01 Issue 1: trailing dot in Domain, Tony Finch, 04:19
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, Hector Santos, 04:12
April 02, 2007
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 5: Syntax of ID clause in Received trace header, Tony Hansen, 23:50
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 4: Client actions on receipt of 4yz and 5yz codes, Tony Hansen, 23:26
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, Dave Crocker, 16:46
- Re: More references in 2821bis, Robert A. Rosenberg, 16:04
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions (was: Re: IPv6), John C Klensin, 13:09
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, Frank Ellermann, 12:12
- Re: More references in 2821bis, Frank Ellermann, 11:24
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 12: IPv6 MX records and transitions (was: Re: IPv6), Lisa Dusseault, 09:49
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, John C Klensin, 05:23
April 01, 2007
- Re: More references in 2821bis, Robert A. Rosenberg, 21:48
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 18:41
- Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter, Dave Crocker, 14:40
- Re: More references in 2821bis, Frank Ellermann, 11:33
- Re: More references in 2821bis, ned+ietf-smtp, 08:21
- Re: More references in 2821bis, John C Klensin, 07:06
- Re: More references in 2821bis, Frank Ellermann, 05:04