IETF SMTP (date)

IETF SMTP (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

January 06, 2020

Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, John R Levine, 08:37
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Dave Crocker, 08:28
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Hector Santos, 08:13

January 05, 2020

Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Viktor Dukhovni, 14:14
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, John Levine, 11:19
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, John R Levine, 10:00
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Keith Moore, 01:38

January 04, 2020

Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Dave Crocker, 23:58
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Keith Moore, 22:03
Re: [ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, John Levine, 20:18
[ietf-smtp] Characteristics of Isolated (or mostly-isolated) industrial IP Networks, Keith Moore, 01:27

January 03, 2020

Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around, Dave Crocker, 13:03
Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around, Keith Moore, 12:45
Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around, John Levine, 12:03
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on submission authentication, John Levine, 11:27
Re: [ietf-smtp] lounging around, John Levine, 10:52
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 09:22
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine, 09:13
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 09:11
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 00:09

January 02, 2020

[ietf-smtp] lounging around, Dave Crocker, 22:37
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 22:33
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker, 22:19
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Ned Freed, 22:10
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 21:41
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Ned Freed, 21:35
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 17:56
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John Levine, 16:33
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John Levine, 16:17
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 15:58
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John C Klensin, 15:49
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 15:11
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 14:48
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 14:31
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 14:20
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 13:34
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 13:28
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 13:28
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 13:20
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 13:10
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 13:09
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 13:08
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 13:01
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 12:51
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 12:24
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John C Klensin, 12:17
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker, 12:07
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 12:06
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Hector Santos, 11:41
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 11:18
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 11:14
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine, 11:03
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Hector Santos, 10:48
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Hector Santos, 09:48
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker, 09:25
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Hector Santos, 09:21
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Hector Santos, 08:57
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Alessandro Vesely, 04:51

January 01, 2020

Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Viktor Dukhovni, 21:36
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 17:06
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John Levine, 16:52
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 16:01
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Dave Crocker, 14:43
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 14:22
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John Levine, 14:02
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 13:48
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Viktor Dukhovni, 13:38
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine, 13:34
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 13:18
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 13:08
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Viktor Dukhovni, 13:01
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John Levine, 12:42
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Richard Clayton, 12:40
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John Levine, 12:38
Re: [ietf-smtp] SMTP client certs, John Levine, 12:34
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 12:27
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible contribution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Viktor Dukhovni, 12:06
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore, 11:58
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John Levine, 11:55
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine, 11:19
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore, 10:30
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker, 10:22
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker, 10:11
Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine, 10:01
Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Jeremy Harris, 06:20