IETF SMTP (date)
April 25, 2008
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Frank Ellermann, 13:20
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Douglas Otis, 12:37
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10:07
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Alessandro Vesely, 09:45
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Frank Ellermann, 08:25
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 07:54
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 07:28
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Peter J. Holzer, 07:02
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 06:43
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 06:31
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 05:44
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 05:37
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Paul Smith, 02:13
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Paul Smith, 02:12
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:09
April 18, 2008
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Willie Gillespie, 16:39
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Douglas Otis, 15:57
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 13:08
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 12:30
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Lisa Dusseault, 12:21
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 03:50
April 17, 2008
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Paul Smith, 23:32
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 19:24
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 19:13
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, SM, 18:04
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 14:39
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Robert A. Rosenberg, 14:29
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John Leslie, 13:01
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 11:43
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 11:42
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue, Hector Santos, 11:40
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 11:19
- Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts, Hector Santos, 11:15
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 11:13
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 11:07
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 11:04
- Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts, John C Klensin, 09:52
- Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts (was: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), John Leslie, 07:51
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 07:13
- Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts, Hector Santos, 05:41
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John C Klensin, 05:24
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 05:20
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:34
- Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts (was: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:33
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John C Klensin, 04:17
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 04:06
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John C Klensin, 03:54
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 03:45
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue, Paul Smith, 03:15
April 16, 2008
- Re: Block IPv6-only at the border, Frank Ellermann, 17:30
- Re: Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), John C Klensin, 15:36
- Re: Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 14:54
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John C Klensin, 14:07
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Willie Gillespie, 13:55
- Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- IPv4 / IPv6 interaction, John Leslie, 11:38
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John Leslie, 11:12
- IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts (was: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt), John C Klensin, 10:57
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 07:57
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, ned+ietf-smtp, 07:52
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Finch, 07:25
April 15, 2008
- Re: RFC2821bis-10 S5.1 Revision: "Unusable" MXs, Robert A. Rosenberg, 21:31
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 20:30
- RFC2821bis-10 S5.1 Revision: "Unusable" MXs, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 17:02
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, John Leslie, 15:07
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Keith Moore, 15:05
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Hector Santos, 13:40
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12:48
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, SM, 12:28
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11:52
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, SM, 11:50
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue, Hector Santos, 11:02
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10:25
- Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt, Tony Hansen, 06:59
- Re: Requiring PTR, Peter Bowyer, 06:15
- Re: Requiring PTR, Hector Santos, 06:03
April 14, 2008
- Re: Requiring PTR, Carl S. Gutekunst, 22:34
- Re: Requiring PTR, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:11
- Re: Requiring PTR, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:10
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, Frank Ellermann, 17:46
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, ned+ietf-smtp, 16:35
- Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, Tony Finch, 09:34
- Re: Requiring PTR, Hector Santos, 01:32
April 12, 2008
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, John C Klensin, 21:46
- Re: Requiring PTR, Frank Ellermann, 21:19
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, Frank Ellermann, 20:01
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 19:33
- Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, John C Klensin, 17:54
- Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, Dave Crocker, 17:36
- Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, John Leslie, 17:34
- RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 16:50
- Re: Requiring PTR, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 16:31
- Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, John C Klensin, 16:15
- Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, SM, 13:51
- Re: Requiring PTR, Carl S. Gutekunst, 11:51
- Re: Requiring PTR, SM, 09:40
- Do domains in SMTP have to exist ?, John Levine, 09:40
- Requiring PTR, Hector Santos, 07:35
April 11, 2008
- Re: Mixed Return Codes, Frank Ellermann, 14:51
- RE: Mixed Return Codes, MH Michael Hammer (5304), 13:02
- Re: Mixed Return Codes - CORECTION, Hector Santos, 13:02
- Mixed Return Codes, Hector Santos, 12:58
- SMTP Service Advertisement, John Leslie, 09:09
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, John C Klensin, 06:05
April 08, 2008
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Russ Allbery, 22:52
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 21:55
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Pete Resnick, 15:00
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Douglas Otis, 14:35
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), John C Klensin, 10:53
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 09:57
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Hector Santos, 08:23
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Michael Storz, 01:02
April 07, 2008
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Russ Allbery, 20:42
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Robert A. Rosenberg, 20:39
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Douglas Otis, 19:58
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Glenn Anderson, 17:29
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Hector Santos, 16:32
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Hector Santos, 16:18
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Mark Andrews, 15:51
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Frank Ellermann, 15:08
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Pete Resnick, 14:46
- Re: Implicit MX decisions, John C Klensin, 14:45
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, John C Klensin, 14:15
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:52
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:51
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:47
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:47
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:47
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:46
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 13:45
- Re: Implicit MX decisions, Hector Santos, 13:24
- Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Hector Santos, 12:46
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 12:22
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, ned+ietf-smtp, 12:20
- Lost DSNs (was: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?), Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- What is the history of 2821 and implict MX?, Pete Resnick, 11:57
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11:12
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Dave Crocker, 10:22
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Dave Crocker, 09:59
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, John C Klensin, 05:04
- Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 03:19
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Alessandro Vesely, 03:05
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Hector Santos, 02:13
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Hector Santos, 01:59
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Michael Storz, 01:48
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Michael Storz, 01:46
- Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Dave Crocker, 01:08
- deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4, Michael Storz, 00:57
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Hector Santos, 00:28
April 06, 2008
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Hector Santos, 23:45
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Hector Santos, 23:35
- Re: Implicit MX decisions, Dave Crocker, 23:01
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:20
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:19
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:17
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:17
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:16
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:16
- IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP), Hector Santos, 19:37
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Hector Santos, 18:26
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Hector Santos, 18:14
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12:53
- Re: History of fallback to A, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:22
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Michael Storz, 02:01
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01:50
- IPV6 Implementations Reports, Hector Santos, 01:02
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 00:40
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Hector Santos, 00:11
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Russ Allbery, 00:10
April 05, 2008
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:37
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:34
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:34
- Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:34
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:33
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:33
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 18:11
- Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6, Mark Andrews, 15:54
- Implicit MX decisions, John C Klensin, 15:46
- Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:35
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Russ Allbery, 14:21
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Peter J. Holzer, 13:45
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 13:43
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 13:21
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Peter J. Holzer, 13:14
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Peter J. Holzer, 12:59
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Peter J. Holzer, 12:47
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Peter J. Holzer, 12:16
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Bill McQuillan, 11:55
- Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6, Peter J. Holzer, 11:30
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Tony Finch, 08:12
- How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together, Hector Santos, 07:49
- Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:49
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Michael Storz, 03:01
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, John C Klensin, 01:01
- Implicit MXs - asking the question more clearly (was: Re: Scope Creep), John C Klensin, 00:51
April 04, 2008
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, John Levine, 18:48
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Mark Andrews, 17:11
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:06
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:05
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:05
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Robert A. Rosenberg, 15:04
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 14:07
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Michael Storz, 13:48
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, John C Klensin, 13:44
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Peter J. Holzer, 13:03
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, SM, 12:47
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Peter J. Holzer, 12:40
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12:31
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Michael Storz, 12:22
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 12:14
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Bill McQuillan, 11:41
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Paul Hoffman, 11:37
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Dave Crocker, 11:16
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, John Levine, 11:13
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Dave Crocker, 10:44
- Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Willie Gillespie, 10:33
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Tony Hansen, 10:21
- There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know, Michael Storz, 10:12
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Tony Hansen, 10:12
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Dave Crocker, 09:13
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Hector Santos, 05:40
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Michael Storz, 05:03
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Frank Ellermann, 04:13
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Paul Smith, 03:04
April 03, 2008
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore, 17:02
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Peter J. Holzer, 16:24
- Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Mark Andrews, 15:32
- current usage of AAAA implicit MX?, Tony Hansen, 13:56
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Hector Santos, 10:14
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Bill McQuillan, 10:07
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Michael Storz, 01:46
April 02, 2008
- Re: Scope Creep, Robert A. Rosenberg, 18:13
- Re: History of fallback to A, Keith Moore, 16:07
- Re: Scope Creep, Lisa Dusseault, 13:37
- Re: Scope Creep, Dave Crocker, 12:54
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12:51
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12:49
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, SM, 12:39
- Re: History of fallback to A, John C Klensin, 12:27
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, John C Klensin, 12:17
- Re: Scope Creep, John C Klensin, 12:07
- Re: Scope Creep, ned+ietf-smtp, 12:03
- Re: Scope Creep, Lisa Dusseault, 11:47
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, ned+ietf-smtp, 11:45
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10:47
- Re: History of fallback to A, Dave Crocker, 10:36
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Dave Crocker, 10:31
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Dave Crocker, 10:27
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10:17
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore, 09:19
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Dave Crocker, 08:49
- Re: Scope Creep, Michael Storz, 07:03
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 06:05
- Re: Scope Creep, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 05:56
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore, 05:51
- Re: Scope Creep, Keith Moore, 05:51
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 05:13
- Re: Scope Creep, Michael Storz, 05:08
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Derek J. Balling, 05:06
- Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 04:28
- Re: Scope Creep, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 03:32
- Re: History of fallback to A, Alessandro Vesely, 02:52
April 01, 2008
- outdated thinking about domains and hosts, Keith Moore, 22:38
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:17
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg, 22:16
- Re: Scope Creep, John Leslie, 18:09
- Re: Scope Creep, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:10
- Re: nullmx, ned+ietf-smtp, 15:03
- Re: Scope Creep, Dave Crocker, 14:34
- Re: Scope Creep, John Leslie, 12:40
- Re: nullmx, Frank Ellermann, 12:26
- Re: Scope Creep, Dave Crocker, 12:19
- Scope Creep, John Leslie, 12:08
- Re: dual-stack IP transition, Dave Crocker, 11:51
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Dave Crocker, 11:50
- dual-stack IP transition, John Leslie, 11:23
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Paul Smith, 11:10
- The Actual Difference, John Leslie, 10:45
- Re: nullmx, ned+ietf-smtp, 10:31
- Re: nullmx, Hector Santos, 10:09
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Keith Moore, 09:44
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, 09:01
- Re: nullmx, ned+ietf-smtp, 08:38
- Re: not delivering, and History of fallback to A, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02:32
- Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02:31