SPF Discuss (date)
January 31, 2004
- Re: patenting SPF, Dan Boresjo, 22:24
- RE: patenting SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 21:36
- Re: patenting SPF, Dan Boresjo, 20:45
- RE: Feedback from people using SPF in their MTAs?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:12
- RE: patenting SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:10
- Re: patenting SPF, Matthew Barr, 17:00
- RE: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: negligence perspective, Seth Goodman, 16:03
- Feedback from people using SPF in their MTAs?, Christophe Saout, 15:40
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Matt Perry, 12:11
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: negligence perspective, Meng Weng Wong, 10:35
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 08:47
January 30, 2004
- RE: clamav plugin?, Julian Mehnle, 19:55
- Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 19:38
- Re: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Dan Boresjo, 19:15
- RE: Extensibility, Julian Mehnle, 18:54
- "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Meng Weng Wong, 18:24
- RE: clamav plugin?, Julian Mehnle, 17:09
- Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 16:23
- RE: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:51
- Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Mark Lentczner, 15:45
- RE: Summary: Current state of SPF, Julian Mehnle, 15:24
- Re: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Dan Boresjo, 14:51
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 14:36
- Re: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, wayne, 14:33
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 14:31
- Re: patenting SPF, Thomas H Jones II, 14:02
- RE: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:42
- RE: Summary: Current state of SPF, tv+spf, 13:04
- Re: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Dan Boresjo, 12:49
- Re: SPF and viruses, Meng Weng Wong, 12:38
- RE: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:59
- RE: Summary: Current state of SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:38
- RE: Re: clamav plugin?, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:36
- RE: SPF and viruses, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:34
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:28
- RE: Summary: Current state of SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:19
- Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Dan Boresjo, 10:06
- RE: clamav plugin?, Julian Mehnle, 09:54
- Re: clamav plugin?, Matt Perry, 09:38
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 09:24
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Mark, 09:23
- Re: SPF and viruses, Fridrik Skulason, 09:18
- RE: Re: clamav plugin?, Julian Mehnle, 09:10
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, wayne, 08:50
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 08:29
- RE: Compliance, Julian Mehnle, 07:50
- RE: SPF and viruses, Marc Alaia, 07:34
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Mark, 07:18
- RE: Namespace, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:12
- RE: Compliance, Computerized Horizons, 07:12
- Re: SPF and viruses, Guillaume Filion, 07:04
- Re: SPF and viruses, Fridrik Skulason, 06:57
- RE: Compliance, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:52
- RE: Re: clamav plugin?, Julian Mehnle, 06:51
- RE: SPF and viruses, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:46
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 06:33
- Re: SPF and viruses, Mark Shewmaker, 05:24
- Re: Compliance, Computerized Horizons, 05:24
- Re: Extensibility, Dan Boresjo, 04:39
- RE: [MEDIA] SPF referred to as Caller-ID, Julian Mehnle, 04:31
- RE: Extensibility, Julian Mehnle, 04:26
- RE: Compliance, Julian Mehnle, 04:17
- RE: Received-SPF, Julian Mehnle, 04:11
- [MEDIA] SPF referred to as Caller-ID, Roy Badami, 03:56
- Re: SPF and viruses, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:44
- SPF and viruses, Fridrik Skulason, 02:09
- Re: Extensibility, Wechsler, 01:10
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 01:08
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 01:06
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Wechsler, 01:04
- Re: Namespace, Gustav Foseid, 00:22
- RE: Extensibility, Mark Shewmaker, 00:01
January 29, 2004
- spam caught by spf, Meng Weng Wong, 22:23
- Re: Compliance, James Couzens, 21:53
- Compliance, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:39
- Re[2]: Received-SPF, Sanford Whiteman, 20:26
- Re: new result values: none, neutral, and softfail, Dan Boresjo, 19:03
- Re: new result values: none, neutral, and softfail, wayne, 18:50
- Re: new result values: none, neutral, and softfail, Dan Boresjo, 18:41
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Philip Gladstone, 18:39
- Re: Received-SPF, Guillaume Filion, 18:38
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 18:35
- Re: Received-SPF, wayne, 18:28
- Re: new result values: none, neutral, and softfail, Philip Gladstone, 18:24
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Philip Gladstone, 18:22
- RE: Extensibility, Julian Mehnle, 18:13
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 18:08
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 18:05
- RE: Extensibility, Julian Mehnle, 18:04
- Re: Extensibility, Meng Weng Wong, 17:59
- Re: Extensibility, wayne, 17:55
- RE: Summary: Current state of SPF, Julian Mehnle, 17:53
- Re: envelope + headers: argument on autocatalytic grounds, wayne, 17:50
- RE: Extensibility (was: [OT] Frozen or slushy?), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:31
- RE: patenting SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:27
- RE: Received-SPF, Julian Mehnle, 17:11
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Mark Shewmaker, 17:05
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 17:05
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:51
- envelope + headers: argument on autocatalytic grounds, Meng Weng Wong, 16:46
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Dan Boresjo, 16:40
- [ANNOUNCE] Experimental patch for native qmail SPF support, Christophe Saout, 16:37
- Re: Received-SPF, Guillaume Filion, 16:35
- RE: Received-SPF, Julian Mehnle, 16:29
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 16:20
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:13
- Received-SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:08
- Extensibility (was: [OT] Frozen or slushy?), Julian Mehnle, 16:07
- Re: patenting SPF, Dennis Carr, 16:06
- Re: Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 15:59
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 15:47
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:40
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 15:11
- Re: patenting SPF, Dan Boresjo, 15:06
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:02
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 14:50
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, tv+spf, 14:47
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Mark Shewmaker, 14:46
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:36
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 14:35
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF: envelope + headers, Wechsler, 14:28
- Re: procmail, Catherine Hampton, 14:27
- Re: procmail, Meng Weng Wong, 14:21
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 14:14
- Re: procmail, Catherine Hampton, 14:03
- Re: Namespace, Andy Bakun, 13:58
- Draft finalization issues, Meng Weng Wong, 13:44
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 13:32
- Re: Suspicious:RE: version strings, Meng Weng Wong, 13:31
- patenting SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- RE: The next IETF meeting will have a BOF that disc usses SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:19
- RE: Suspicious:RE: version strings, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:09
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, tv+spf, 13:02
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:02
- procmail, Meng Weng Wong, 12:59
- Re: clamav plugin?, Guillaume Filion, 12:42
- The next IETF meeting will have a BOF that discusses SPF, wayne, 12:40
- Re: Registrar DNS support (register.com stories), Phil Howard, 12:39
- OT: Re: SPF and mydoom, Dan Boresjo, 12:04
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 12:00
- Re: Namespace and DMP, Meng Weng Wong, 11:49
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:42
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 11:41
- Re: new result values: none, neutral, and softfail, mengwong, 11:37
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 11:26
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:21
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF: envelope + headers, Meng Weng Wong, 11:10
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, tv+spf, 10:53
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 10:37
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 10:36
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 10:21
- Re: Namespace, wayne, 10:01
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 09:57
- Re: SPF and mydoom, Meng Weng Wong, 09:56
- IETF to discuss SPF and related proposals, Yakov Shafranovich, 09:54
- RE: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:53
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 09:50
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 09:38
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:34
- Re: Summary: Current state of SPF, wayne, 09:22
- Re: SPF and mydoom, Alain Knaff, 09:16
- Testing incoming SPF at the user level, Wechsler, 09:08
- Summary: Current state of SPF, Wechsler, 08:54
- Re: SPF and mydoom, tv+spf, 08:49
- Re: SPF C implementation in qmail style patch for testing, Christophe Saout, 07:48
- spf regression tests, Christophe Saout, 07:44
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Dan Boresjo, 07:38
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, wayne, 07:24
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, wayne, 07:16
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Dan Boresjo, 07:15
- RE: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:01
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, wayne, 07:01
- Re: SPF and mydoom, Wechsler, 06:18
- Re: SPF and mydoom, Alain Knaff, 05:57
- SPF and mydoom, Wechsler, 05:37
- Re: SPF Proxy, Dan Boresjo, 04:10
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Matthew Barr, 03:23
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Dan Boresjo, 02:45
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, James Couzens, 02:22
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Dan Boresjo, 02:20
- Re: version strings, Dan Boresjo, 01:45
- Namespace, Gustav Foseid, 01:43
January 28, 2004
- RE: version strings, James Couzens, 23:26
- Re: SPF C implementation in qmail style patch for testing, James Couzens, 23:10
- SPF C implementation in qmail style patch for testing, Christophe Saout, 20:11
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 20:07
- RE: version strings, Marc Alaia, 19:45
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, wayne, 19:11
- Re: version strings, wayne, 19:08
- Re: version strings, wayne, 19:04
- RE: version strings, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:55
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 17:33
- RE: version strings, James Couzens, 17:11
- RE: version strings, Marc Alaia, 17:00
- RE: version strings, Dustin D. Trammell, 16:53
- Re: libspf - RELEASE - v0.19 pre-beta, James Couzens, 15:26
- RE: SPF Proxy, Marc Alaia, 15:16
- Re: SPF Proxy, Rolf E. Sonneveld, 15:12
- Re: Registrar DNS support (register.com stories), Phil Howard, 15:07
- SPF Proxy, Marc Alaia, 15:05
- Re: Registrar DNS support (register.com stories), Thomas Harold, 15:02
- RE: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:46
- Re: Translation of spf.pobox.com, Meng Weng Wong, 13:02
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, johnc-lists, 12:55
- Re: GraniteCanyon SPF records, Meng Weng Wong, 12:42
- Re: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, wayne, 12:31
- [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Wechsler, 12:18
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 12:12
- Re: libspf - RELEASE - v0.19 pre-beta, rOD-spf, 11:39
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 11:38
- Re: GraniteCanyon SPF records, Kelson Vibber, 11:27
- GraniteCanyon SPF records, Matthew Mucker, 11:02
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 11:01
- Re: SPF disadvantages, Matthew Barr, 10:18
- Re: Translation of spf.pobox.com, Wechsler, 10:14
- libspf - RELEASE - v0.19 pre-beta, James Couzens, 06:29
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Julian Mehnle, 06:26
- Re: [spf-discuss] Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, wayne, 06:15
- Re: SPF spec is frozen, but I don't think it has been finalized, Mark, 06:14
- Re: Translation of spf.pobox.com, Ernesto Baschny, 06:13
- Re: Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, Wechsler, 06:00
- Re: Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, Wechsler, 05:47
- Re: Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, wayne, 05:34
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 05:31
- SPF disadvantages, Peter Baumann, 05:27
- Re: Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, wayne, 05:21
- Re: Translation of spf.pobox.com, Wechsler, 04:12
- Re: Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, Dan Boresjo, 03:34
- Frozen, or just a bit slushy?, Wechsler, 03:16
- Translation of spf.pobox.com, Ernesto Baschny, 03:05
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Ernesto Baschny, 01:51
- Re: SPF advocacy, Mark, 01:44
- Re: SPF advocacy, John Warren, 01:08
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 00:30
January 27, 2004
- Re: SPF spec is frozen, but I don't think it has been finalized, Phil Howard, 23:59
- Re: Registrar DNS support (register.com stories), Jim Popovitch, 22:06
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Dan Boresjo, 21:39
- Re: Registrar DNS support (register.com stories), Thomas Harold, 21:09
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:57
- Re: SPF advocacy, Greg Wooledge, 20:32
- Re: SPF advocacy, Philip Gladstone, 19:57
- SPF spec is frozen, but I don't think it has been finalized, wayne, 19:40
- Re: SPF advocacy, Matthew Barr, 19:39
- Re: return of SOFTFAIL, wayne, 19:20
- Re: return of SOFTFAIL, Meng Weng Wong, 19:16
- Re: return of SOFTFAIL, Matthew Barr, 19:09
- Re: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Jim Popovitch, 18:53
- Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas Harold, 18:13
- return of SOFTFAIL, Meng Weng Wong, 18:11
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Dan Boresjo, 18:10
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Dan Boresjo, 17:47
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Guillaume Filion, 17:22
- Re: two kinds of responses to SPF, Thomas R. Stephenson, 17:18
- Re: SPF & Postfix Relayhosts for Cable Modems/DSL?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:56
- RE: SPF advocacy, ck, 16:55
- Re: SPF & Postfix Relayhosts for Cable Modems/DSL?, Greg Wooledge, 16:53
- Re: SPF advocacy, Theo Van Dinter, 16:52
- Re: SPF advocacy, ck, 16:40
- Re: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Philip Gladstone, 16:19
- two kinds of responses to SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:12
- Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Thomas Harold, 16:10
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Meng Weng Wong, 16:07
- Re: SPF & Postfix Relayhosts for Cable Modems/DSL?, Sanford Whiteman, 16:06
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Thomas Harold, 15:59
- Re: Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas R. Stephenson, 15:37
- RE: Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas R. Stephenson, 15:35
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 15:28
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 15:23
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Will Senn, 14:43
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Will Senn, 14:38
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 14:35
- SPF & Postfix Relayhosts for Cable Modems/DSL?, Cyrus Mehta, 14:24
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Will Senn, 14:22
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Dan Boresjo, 13:57
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 13:41
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Mark, 13:12
- Re: SPF advocacy, Meng Weng Wong, 12:26
- RE: SPF advocacy, Vivien M., 12:23
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:38
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Thomas Harold, 11:25
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Thomas Harold, 11:24
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 11:24
- RE: Re: SPF advocacy, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:27
- New advocacy page on infinitepenguins - well-known domains, Wechsler, 10:25
- Re: SPF advocacy, Matt Perry, 09:44
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, tv+spf, 08:36
- Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:33
- RE: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:05
- [MEDIA] SPF referred to as Caller-ID, wayne, 07:54
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, wayne, 07:39
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 07:33
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, tv+spf, 07:32
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, wayne, 07:12
- Re: what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, Dan Boresjo, 05:34
- Re: Handling forward?, Christopher Chan, 05:10
- Re: Handling forward?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:13
- Re: Handling forward?, Alain Knaff, 03:35
- Re: Handling forward?, Alain Knaff, 03:19
- Re: Handling forward?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:16
- Re: Handling forward?, Meng Weng Wong, 03:13
- Re: Handling forward?, Christopher Chan, 03:11
- Re: Handling forward?, Meng Weng Wong, 02:50
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 02:47
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 02:43
- Re: Handling forward?, Phil Howard, 02:14
- Re: Handling forward?, Wechsler, 00:49
- Re: Handling forward?, James Couzens, 00:47
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 00:44
- Re: Handling forward?, Christopher Chan, 00:06
January 26, 2004
- Re: Proposed Accreditation Section, Alain Knaff, 23:50
- Handling forward?, Dennis Carr, 23:38
- Re: what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, Phil Howard, 23:35
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, wayne, 19:06
- An important use case for "exists", Meng Weng Wong, 19:01
- Re: Redundant / unused SPF features?, wayne, 18:56
- Redundant / unused SPF features?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:42
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, Mark, 18:37
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, Philip Gladstone, 18:19
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, Mike Batchelor, 17:56
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, R. Scott Perry, 17:42
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, wayne, 17:40
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, Meng Weng Wong, 17:38
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, wayne, 17:35
- Re: Long SPF records cut short?, Meng Weng Wong, 17:35
- Long SPF records cut short?, Mike Batchelor, 17:32
- RE: Proposed Accreditation Section, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:19
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 01/26/04, Wayne Schlitt, 17:17
- Re: SPF advocacy, Jameel Akari, 16:51
- Re: Proposed Accreditation Section, Dan Boresjo, 15:57
- Re: Proposed Accreditation Section, Alain Knaff, 15:44
- Re: Fw: Re: SPF advocacy, Bill Landry, 15:24
- Re: SPF advocacy, ck, 14:47
- Proposed Accreditation Section, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:35
- Re: Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 14:06
- Mechanism usage in live SPF records, Wechsler, 13:58
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Steven G. Willis, 13:43
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Mark, 13:40
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, wayne, 13:29
- Re: what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, wayne, 13:21
- Re: what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, Phil Howard, 13:15
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 13:10
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 13:01
- Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Greg Connor, 12:56
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Steven G. Willis, 12:45
- Re: Test Domains, Greg Connor, 12:43
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 12:36
- Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas R. Stephenson, 12:07
- Re: SPF advocacy, wayne, 11:46
- Re: Implimenting SPF in Sendmail, wayne, 11:43
- Re: SPF advocacy, Thomas R. Stephenson, 11:40
- Re: Implimenting SPF in Sendmail, Meng Weng Wong, 11:38
- Re: Implimenting SPF in Sendmail, Mark, 11:32
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 11:28
- Re: Oh That, B. Johannessen, 11:17
- Implimenting SPF in Sendmail, Dan Willett Sr., 10:54
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 10:37
- Re: Oh That, David Saez, 10:35
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 09:53
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 09:20
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, tv+spf, 08:15
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 08:15
- Re: Test Domains, Meng Weng Wong, 08:00
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, tv+spf, 07:53
- Re: Test Domains, Wechsler, 07:36
- Test Domains, Mark Anderson, 07:14
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 06:42
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 06:08
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, tv+spf, 05:57
- Re: Slightly Confused., Wechsler, 05:54
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, tv+spf, 05:53
- Slightly Confused., Tom Allison, 05:14
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 05:09
- Re: SPF advocacy, Carsten Kuckuk, 04:01
January 25, 2004
- Re: SPF advocacy, Greg Connor, 23:25
- Re: SPF advocacy, Meng Weng Wong, 22:20
- Re: Slashdotted again, Meng Weng Wong, 22:02
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 20:24
- Slashdotted again, Matt Perry, 19:40
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Aredridel, 18:47
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:31
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, tv+spf, 18:28
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 18:07
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 17:52
- Re: Re: SPF advocacy, wayne, 17:21
- Re: Joe-Jobbed, guillaume, 17:16
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 17:16
- Re: SPF in MTAs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 17:05
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Meng Weng Wong, 16:21
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Mark, 16:17
- Re: SPF advocacy, Matt Perry, 16:04
- Re: Re: SPF advocacy, Phil Howard, 15:55
- Using SPF with Postfix: documentation needed, Meng Weng Wong, 15:48
- RE: what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, Julian Mehnle, 15:20
- SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Scott Savarese, 15:17
- what about an SPF modifier for C/R policy?, Phil Howard, 15:15
- RE: version strings, Julian Mehnle, 15:14
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, Steven G. Willis, 15:06
- RE: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Julian Mehnle, 14:41
- RE: Oh That, Julian Mehnle, 14:20
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 14:14
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, wayne, 14:14
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 14:14
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, Sanford Whiteman, 14:05
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Matt Perry, 13:59
- Re: SPF advocacy, Rich Puhek, 13:42
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Rich Puhek, 13:40
- Re: SPF advocacy, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:23
- Re: SPF advocacy, wayne, 13:23
- Re: Oh That, Wechsler, 13:22
- Re: SPF advocacy, Greg Wooledge, 13:16
- Re: Oh That, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:15
- Re: SPF advocacy, Meng Weng Wong, 13:14
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Greg Wooledge, 13:13
- Re: SPF advocacy, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:11
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Steven G. Willis, 13:11
- Re: Oh That, David Saez, 13:06
- Re: Oh That, Meng Weng Wong, 13:03
- RE: Oh That, Julian Mehnle, 12:48
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Aredridel, 12:43
- RE: SPF advocacy, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:27
- Re: SPF advocacy, wayne, 12:23
- RE: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:21
- Re: SPF advocacy, Mark, 12:20
- Re: SPF in MTAs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 11:37
- Re: SPF in MTAs, wayne, 11:29
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, list+spf-discuss, 11:27
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Meng Weng Wong, 11:25
- Re: SPF advocacy, wayne, 11:17
- Re: SPF advocacy, Wechsler, 11:17
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Tim Wilde, 11:16
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Meng Weng Wong, 11:09
- Re: Re: SPF advocacy, Meng Weng Wong, 11:08
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, wayne, 11:04
- Re: SPF advocacy, Matt Perry, 11:03
- Re: version strings, Meng Weng Wong, 10:11
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Meng Weng Wong, 10:07
- Re: SPF advocacy, Greg Wooledge, 09:32
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, John Warren, 09:21
- SPF advocacy, Meng Weng Wong, 08:59
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, John Warren, 08:56
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Steven G. Willis, 08:55
- Re: Microsoft Patent on XML format, Matt Perry, 08:25
- RE: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:24
- version strings, Meng Weng Wong, 08:05
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:33
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Greg Connor, 05:13
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 04:50
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 03:34
- Re: Oh That, David Saez, 02:36
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 02:24
- FreeDNS now supports TXT Records, Zan Hecht, 02:20
- Oh That, Wechsler, 02:16
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Wechsler, 02:14
- EhWHAT?, Wechsler, 01:55
January 24, 2004
- libspf - RELEASE v0.17 pre-beta, James Couzens, 21:55
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", wayne, 21:08
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Meng Weng Wong, 20:59
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Philip Gladstone, 20:49
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 20:39
- Important reason for the use of macros, Philip Gladstone, 20:29
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Greg Connor, 17:41
- Re: Microsoft Patent on XML format, wayne, 12:25
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", wayne, 12:24
- Re: Microsoft Patent on XML format, Phil Howard, 12:10
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 12:06
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 11:48
- Re: Microsoft Patent on XML format, Richard Pitt, 11:24
- Microsoft Patent on XML format, Richard Pitt, 11:19
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Terence Way, 10:46
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Wechsler, 10:21
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 10:20
- Re: return of softfail, and its sidekick 'none', wayne, 10:07
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Phil Howard, 10:06
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Phil Howard, 09:54
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, wayne, 09:52
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Meng Weng Wong, 09:50
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Julian Mehnle, 09:48
- Re: return of softfail, and its sidekick 'none', Wechsler, 09:47
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 09:44
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Dan Boresjo, 09:43
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 09:38
- return of softfail, and its sidekick 'none', Meng Weng Wong, 09:33
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 09:28
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 09:23
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Meng Weng Wong, 09:11
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Julian Mehnle, 08:40
- Re: SPF design refrozen, wayne, 07:42
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Mark Shewmaker, 05:57
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Richard Kay, 05:37
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Wechsler, 03:29
- Re: Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Steven G. Willis, 00:28
January 23, 2004
- Response to the Bellovin Critique of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 23:42
- Re: SPF design refrozen, wayne, 21:31
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", wayne, 21:23
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Marc Alaia, 20:40
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Tim Wilde, 20:30
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Philip Gladstone, 20:24
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Julian Mehnle, 20:16
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Phil Howard, 19:47
- RE: SPF design refrozen, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:45
- What to do when you get spammed, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:43
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Marc Alaia, 19:42
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 19:32
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 19:00
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Julian Mehnle, 18:51
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Meng Weng Wong, 18:34
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 18:31
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Phil Howard, 18:13
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 18:11
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Matt Perry, 17:37
- Re: SPF design refrozen, Justin Mason, 16:30
- SPF design refrozen, Meng Weng Wong, 16:10
- RE: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Jeremy Doupe, 15:22
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 13:53
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 12:17
- Re: Google News Alert - spf spam, Meng Weng Wong, 10:39
- Re: SPF is like onions, tv+spf, 10:37
- SPF is like onions, wayne, 10:27
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, johnc-lists, 10:08
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, tv+spf, 09:23
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Mark Shewmaker, 08:58
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., wayne, 08:01
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., wayne, 07:09
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Mark, 07:03
- Re: bugs in rfc2821, John Warren, 06:50
- Discussion of MS's Pro XML arguments, Carsten Kuckuk, 06:46
- Tally Ho, Chaps!, Wechsler, 06:39
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Dan Boresjo, 06:15
- RE: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Julian Mehnle, 06:09
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., wayne, 06:02
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Dan Boresjo, 05:56
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., tv+spf, 05:55
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", tv+spf, 05:53
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:35
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Dan Boresjo, 05:33
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., wayne, 05:31
- A proposal: HostSet Expressions, Dan Boresjo, 05:23
- RE: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Carsten Kuckuk, 05:11
- RE: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Julian Mehnle, 04:57
- Re: Translating how-to and advocacy documents, Wechsler, 04:56
- RE: Translating how-to and advocacy documents, Julian Mehnle, 04:13
January 22, 2004
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Dan Boresjo, 19:32
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:59
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:46
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:28
- Re: Translating how-to and advocacy documents (was: SPF story on news.com), Meng Weng Wong, 18:26
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 18:25
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", wayne, 18:19
- Re: The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Phil Howard, 17:56
- The Case For XML in "Caller-ID for Email", Meng Weng Wong, 17:52
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Phil Howard, 17:51
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Phil Howard, 17:32
- Re: Translating how-to and advocacy documents (was: SPF story on news.com), rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 17:21
- Translating how-to and advocacy documents (was: SPF story on news.com), Julian Mehnle, 17:05
- RE: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Julian Mehnle, 16:59
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 16:48
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Meng Weng Wong, 16:24
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Rolf E. Sonneveld, 16:20
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Meng Weng Wong, 16:12
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 16:11
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Wechsler, 14:37
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:35
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Dan Boresjo, 14:31
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:30
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:14
- Re: considering XML, Wechsler, 14:12
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Phil Howard, 14:11
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Phil Howard, 14:06
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 13:49
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Phil Howard, 13:49
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Justin Mason, 13:44
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 13:42
- Re: CNAMEs, Phil Howard, 13:36
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 13:34
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 13:29
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 13:29
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Phil Howard, 13:28
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Re: On XML, wayne, 13:26
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Justin Mason, 13:26
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 13:24
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 13:22
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 13:07
- Re: Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Matt Perry, 13:05
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Marc Alaia, 13:04
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 13:01
- Re: Fwd: Microsoft attempting to patent XML for Word Processing, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:58
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:55
- Re: Re: bugs in rfc2821, John A. Martin, 12:39
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:33
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:32
- Some thoughts on the XML thread..., Dustin D. Trammell, 12:31
- RE: Extensibility and Accreditation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:27
- Re: OT: popfile, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:22
- Re: bugs in rfc2821, John A. Martin, 12:19
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Dan Boresjo, 12:06
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 11:50
- Re: bugs in rfc2821, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 11:49
- On XML, Matt Sergeant, 11:41
- Re: bugs in rfc2821, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 11:35
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 11:32
- Re: OT: popfile, Thomas R. Stephenson, 11:18
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 11:18
- bugs in rfc2821, Meng Weng Wong, 11:15
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, John A. Martin, 11:13
- Re: OT: popfile, Meng Weng Wong, 11:12
- Re: OT: popfile, Thomas R. Stephenson, 11:09
- Re: OT: popfile, Thomas R. Stephenson, 11:05
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Dan Boresjo, 11:00
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 10:50
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Meng Weng Wong, 10:45
- Re: solving the CEO problem: proposed new mechanism for conditional logic, Mark Lentczner, 10:45
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Meng Weng Wong, 10:43
- Re: considering XML, Mark Lentczner, 10:40
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, wayne, 10:38
- RE: Extensibility and Accreditation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:35
- Re: OT: popfile, Meng Weng Wong, 10:30
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Alain Knaff, 10:28
- RE: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, Seth Goodman, 10:21
- Re: SPF story on news.com, Meng Weng Wong, 10:20
- Re: Fwd: Microsoft attempting to patent XML for Word Processing, G. Roderick Singleton, 10:12
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Marc Alaia, 10:05
- RE: SPF story on news.com, Jameel Akari, 09:58
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 09:56
- OT: popfile, James Couzens, 09:44
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, johnc-lists, 09:41
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Dan Boresjo, 09:36
- RE: SPF story on news.com, Marc Alaia, 09:36
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Marc Alaia, 09:32
- Re: SPF story on news.com, wayne, 09:30
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, Dan Boresjo, 09:29
- SPF story on news.com, Tim Gladding, 09:12
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Aredridel, 09:01
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, johnc-lists, 09:00
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:59
- Re: Extensibility and Accreditation, wayne, 08:49
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Henrik Edlund, 08:47
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:45
- RE: considering XML, Julian Mehnle, 08:29
- Re: considering XML, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:28
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bot tom line?, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:21
- Re: considering XML, Carsten Kuckuk, 08:12
- Re: Fwd: Microsoft attempting to patent XML for Word Processing, James Couzens, 08:03
- RE: Fwd: [Marketing] Microsoft attempting to patent XML for Word Processing], Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:02
- RE: Extensibility and Accreditation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:50
- Fwd: [Marketing] Microsoft attempting to patent XML for Word Processing], G. Roderick Singleton, 07:47
- CNAMEs, Henrik Edlund, 07:26
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 07:20
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Brian Coloney, 06:55
- Re: considering XML, Carsten Kuckuk, 06:54
- Re: considering XML, Dan Boresjo, 05:47
- Re: considering XML, Alain Knaff, 05:22
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Dan Boresjo, 05:11
- Re: considering XML, Carsten Kuckuk, 04:36
- Re: considering XML, Wechsler, 04:00
- Joe-Jobbed, Wechsler, 03:13
- RE: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, William Astle, 03:01
- Extensibility and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 02:53
- RE: considering XML, lcarver, 02:35
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 02:23
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 02:11
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 02:05
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 01:57
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 01:56
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 01:46
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 01:42
- Re: The case for XML, Phil Howard, 01:27
- Re: SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 01:13
- RE: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, John Warren, 00:29
- SPF - ISP's vs Corporate, Marc Alaia, 00:08
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 00:04
January 21, 2004
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:56
- Re: considering XML, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 23:54
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:54
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:45
- [humor] Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:41
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:39
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:33
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 23:32
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 23:28
- Re: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, wayne, 22:49
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, ty lammy, 22:28
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, RK Mail LIst, 20:58
- Re: The case for XML, Aredridel, 20:28
- Re: considering XML, Philip Gladstone, 20:09
- Re: considering XML, Aredridel, 19:49
- Re: considering XML, Mark Lentczner, 19:35
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Aredridel, 19:30
- RE: considering XML, R. Scott Perry, 19:01
- Re: considering XML, Tim Wilde, 18:58
- RE: considering XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:35
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 17:13
- RE: The case for XML, Julian Mehnle, 17:05
- Re: considering XML, guillaume, 17:04
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, James Couzens, 16:57
- Re: The case for XML, R. Scott Perry, 16:53
- RE: The case for XML, Julian Mehnle, 16:36
- Re: The case for XML, Mark Lentczner, 16:33
- Re: The case for XML, Meng Weng Wong, 16:24
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Richard Kay, 16:18
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 16:13
- Re: The case for XML, guillaume, 15:56
- Re: step by step deploment, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:51
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Kelson Vibber, 15:45
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bot tom line?, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 15:39
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 15:37
- Re: The case for XML, wayne, 15:32
- RE: The case for XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:30
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 15:30
- RE: The case for XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:27
- Re: step by step deploment, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:27
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, Alain Knaff, 15:19
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:16
- Re: The case for XML, James Couzens, 15:12
- Re: Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 15:09
- Re: Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Alain Knaff, 15:09
- Re: step by step deployment, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:03
- Re: The case for XML, wayne, 15:00
- Re: step by step deploment, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:59
- Re: The case for XML, wayne, 14:55
- Re: step by step deploment, Wechsler, 14:53
- Re: step by step deploment, Meng Weng Wong, 14:53
- Re: The case for XML, Meng Weng Wong, 14:51
- Re: The case for XML, R. Scott Perry, 14:50
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bot tom line?, Andy Lester, 14:50
- Re: step by step deploment, wayne, 14:49
- RE: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bot tom line?, Marc Alaia, 14:47
- step by step deploment, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:45
- Re: The case for XML, wayne, 14:43
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Larry Smith, 14:30
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Rob Kaper, 14:21
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 14:19
- Re: The case for XML, Meng Weng Wong, 14:19
- Re: considering XML, Matt Perry, 14:16
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, John Capo, 14:04
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 14:02
- Re: considering XML, Phil Howard, 14:01
- The case for XML, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:00
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:53
- Re: considering XML, Wechsler, 13:48
- Re: considering XML, John Capo, 13:43
- Re: considering XML, Mark, 13:40
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:37
- Re: considering XML, Justin Mason, 13:33
- Re: considering XML, frank, 13:27
- Re: considering XML, James Couzens, 13:27
- Re: considering XML, Andy, 13:26
- Re: Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Alain Knaff, 13:25
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, John A. Martin, 13:25
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:21
- Re: considering XML, Kelson Vibber, 13:18
- Re: considering XML, Carsten Kuckuk, 13:15
- Re: considering XML, James Couzens, 13:14
- Re: considering XML, Dan Boresjo, 13:06
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 13:04
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 12:58
- RE: considering XML, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:57
- Re: considering XML, James Couzens, 12:54
- Re: considering XML, Mark, 12:51
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 12:50
- Re: considering XML, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:44
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 12:38
- Re: considering XML, Wechsler, 12:36
- Re: considering XML, Justin Mason, 12:35
- Re: considering XML, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:35
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 12:34
- RE: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, Seth Goodman, 12:25
- Re: considering XML, spf, 12:23
- Re: considering XML, R. Scott Perry, 12:22
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 12:20
- Returned mail: see transcript for details, qjbuiuavonhw, 12:18
- Re: considering XML, Tim Gladding, 12:18
- Returned mail: see transcript for details, qjbuiuavonhw, 12:18
- Re: considering XML, Henrik Edlund, 12:17
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 12:17
- Re: considering XML, wayne, 12:13
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 12:12
- Re: considering XML, Kelson Vibber, 12:10
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 12:09
- RE: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, Seth Goodman, 12:08
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:03
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 12:03
- Re: considering XML, Alan Hodgson, 12:01
- Re: considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 11:59
- Re: which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, Kelson Vibber, 11:56
- Re: considering XML, Wechsler, 11:53
- Re: considering XML, George Schlossnagle, 11:53
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Hans Dieter Pearcey, 11:51
- considering XML, Meng Weng Wong, 11:43
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Sam Norris, 11:39
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Andy Lester, 11:36
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 11:36
- another proposal to solve forwarding problem, David Saez, 11:29
- which DNS does SPF record belong in + macro question, Seth Goodman, 11:23
- Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, Meng Weng Wong, 11:04
- RE: Using headers instead of SRS, Julian Mehnle, 10:59
- Re: RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:53
- Re: Adoption Roll Update, Wechsler, 09:14
- RE: Adoption Roll Update, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:37
- Re: RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Meng Weng Wong, 08:15
- Re: Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your bottom line?, William Astle, 07:49
- Re: RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:15
- Re: solving the CEO problem: proposed new mechanism for conditional logic, Wechsler, 00:49
January 20, 2004
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, wayne, 22:54
- Re: verifying the message instead of just it's path, Thor Kooda, 22:53
- Re: solving the CEO problem: proposed new mechanism for conditional logic, wayne, 22:44
- Re: verifying the message instead of just it's path, Meng Weng Wong, 22:25
- Re: verifying the message instead of just it's path, Meng Weng Wong, 22:21
- Re: verifying the message instead of just it's path, Thor Kooda, 22:19
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 21:17
- Re: verifying the message instead of just it's path, Meng Weng Wong, 21:11
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Steve +1 608 278 7700, 21:08
- verifying the message instead of just it's path, Thor Kooda, 21:03
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 20:36
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Ask Bjørn Hansen, 20:30
- Re: Using headers instead of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 20:28
- Using headers instead of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 19:48
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, Kelson Vibber, 18:42
- RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 18:39
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, George Schlossnagle, 18:38
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, Meng Weng Wong, 18:34
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, George Schlossnagle, 18:20
- RE: Adoption Roll Update, Marc Alaia, 17:58
- solving the CEO problem: proposed new mechanism for conditional logic, Meng Weng Wong, 17:04
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, Meng Weng Wong, 17:00
- RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Marc Alaia, 16:22
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:56
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, arnold+spf, 15:44
- Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:40
- Re: rejection at SMTP time?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:20
- Re: RE: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:03
- RE: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Julian Mehnle, 14:50
- Re: Re: spam has been around longer than email, Rob Kaper, 14:49
- the forwarding problem, Meng Weng Wong, 14:44
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:31
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, wayne, 14:09
- Re[2]: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Sanford Whiteman, 13:59
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:24
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, wayne, 13:18
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:02
- Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Jim Ramsay, 12:41
- Re: Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, wayne, 12:40
- Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 12:30
- Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Steve +1 608 278 7700, 11:41
- Re: Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, Ernesto Baschny, 10:48
- Re: Re: spam has been around longer than email, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 10:33
- Changing the meaning of "mail from" is stillborn, arnold+spf, 10:12
- Re: spam has been around longer than email, Jim Ramsay, 07:59
- Return receipt, qjbuiuavonhw, 06:17
- RE: rejection at SMTP time?, John Warren, 06:01
- RE: rejection at SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 03:45
- SPF mention in Wired News, ty lammy, 01:53
January 19, 2004
- spam has been around longer than email, mengwong, 22:48
- rejection at SMTP time?, Meng Weng Wong, 19:57
- RE: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Marc Alaia, 19:25
- Re: Re: My first SPF rejection, wayne, 17:31
- Re: Re: My first SPF rejection, Sanford Whiteman, 16:07
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:27
- Re: My first SPF rejection, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:26
- Re: Re: My first SPF rejection, wayne, 12:52
- Re: My first SPF rejection, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 12:03
- Re: Re: My first SPF rejection, wayne, 11:40
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!! -- email addresses examples, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 11:30
- Re: My first SPF rejection, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 11:18
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!! -- email addresses examples, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 11:09
January 18, 2004
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 22:20
- Re: Proposed PGP mechanism and de-spamming Usenet - a job for SPF?, wayne, 21:58
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 21:24
- Proposed PGP mechanism and de-spamming Usenet - a job for SPF?, Dan Boresjo, 21:22
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:10
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, wayne, 10:36
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 09:04
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Dan Boresjo, 05:30
January 17, 2004
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Brian Hatch, 22:26
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 20:20
- Re: My first SPF rejection, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 17:14
- Research documents, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:01
- Re: My first SPF rejection, Phil Howard, 14:38
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Phil Howard, 14:36
- My first SPF rejection, Mark Tranchant, 13:21
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Mark, 11:28
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Dan Boresjo, 11:16
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Dan Boresjo, 11:09
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Mark, 10:56
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, wayne, 10:19
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 09:49
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Mark, 09:17
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 08:40
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 08:37
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, Alain Knaff, 08:24
- Solving the Forwarding Problem for good!!!, John Warren, 08:14
January 16, 2004
- Re: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:41
- RFC : B.2 confused, Alain NAKACHE, 10:26
- Re: Underscores - refresh my memory..., Phil Howard, 10:21
- Re: Underscores - refresh my memory..., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:30
- Underscores - refresh my memory..., Brian Hatch, 08:27
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:11
- Re: New DNS record issue., Mark Tranchant, 08:04
- RE: Advocacy: paypal scam, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:34
- Re: New DNS record issue., John Warren, 07:06
- Re: too many sendmail processes ?, Mark Tranchant, 04:25
- Re: Oh, and..., Wechsler, 00:45
- Re: Advocacy: paypal scam, Rob Kaper, 00:36
- Re: Advocacy: paypal scam, Wechsler, 00:17
January 15, 2004
- Advocacy: paypal scam, Greg Connor, 21:25
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Rik van Riel, 20:46
- Re: Qmail integer overflow in 1.03/1.04 - PATCH RELEASED, guillaume, 20:28
- Re: Qmail integer overflow in 1.03/1.04 - PATCH RELEASED, guillaume, 20:23
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, guillaume, 20:10
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Dan Boresjo, 19:32
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Greg Wooledge, 19:01
- Qmail integer overflow in 1.03/1.04 - PATCH RELEASED, James Couzens, 18:36
- RE: Oh, and..., Dustin D. Trammell, 13:43
- RE: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:41
- Re: implementation question, Dan Boresjo, 13:02
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Mark, 12:11
- Re: SRS and sendmail, Greg Connor, 11:46
- Re: implementation question, George Schlossnagle, 11:45
- Re: implementation question, Greg Connor, 11:41
- Re: too many sendmail processes ?, Greg Connor, 11:28
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Matt Perry, 11:11
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, wayne, 10:58
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, guillaume, 09:50
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Brian Hatch, 09:21
- Re: implementation question, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:44
- Re: implementation question, Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:32
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, George Schlossnagle, 07:51
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, wayne, 07:45
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Philip Gladstone, 07:29
- Re: 'l'? and protocol-freeze, wayne, 06:55
- RE: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:20
- too many sendmail processes ?, Richard Kay, 05:46
- Oh, and..., Wechsler, 04:36
- 'l'? and protocol-freeze, Wechsler, 04:29
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Mark, 04:23
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Nick Phillips, 03:21
- Re: SRS and sendmail, Mark Tranchant, 03:08
- Re: SRS and sendmail, Mark Tranchant, 02:58
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Ask Bjørn Hansen, 01:43
- Off-topic: How whitelists might work in the future, Greg Connor, 01:02
- Re: MX and TXT, Greg Connor, 00:37
- Re: provocative article at BusinessWeek about Yahoo DomainKeys, etc, Sean Comeau, 00:01
January 14, 2004
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Greg Connor, 23:41
- Re: SRS requirements, Greg Connor, 23:31
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Brian Hatch, 22:54
- Re: provocative article at BusinessWeek about Yahoo DomainKeys, etc, wayne, 21:47
- Re: proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Rob Kaper, 21:45
- proposed PGP mechanism for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 21:17
- Re: provocative article at BusinessWeek about Yahoo DomainKeys, etc, Rik van Riel, 20:52
- provocative article at BusinessWeek about Yahoo DomainKeys, etc, Meng Weng Wong, 20:39
- Re: SRS requirements, Ask Bjørn Hansen, 19:59
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 18:04
- Re: SRS requirements, Gerald, 17:55
- Re: SRS requirements, Meng Weng Wong, 16:00
- Re: SRS requirements, Meng Weng Wong, 15:00
- Re: Adoption Roll Update, wayne, 14:34
- Re: current SPF hitrates on my corpus, Meng Weng Wong, 14:13
- current SPF hitrates on my corpus, Justin Mason, 14:03
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 12:49
- Re: SRS requirements, John Capo, 12:42
- Re: SRS requirements, Meng Weng Wong, 12:35
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 12:31
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 12:27
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 12:09
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:06
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., wayne, 12:04
- Re: SRS requirements, Meng Weng Wong, 12:01
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Wechsler, 12:00
- Re: SRS requirements, wayne, 11:59
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Dan Boresjo, 11:59
- Re: MX and TXT, Phil Howard, 11:56
- Re[2]: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Sanford Whiteman, 11:45
- Re: SRS requirements, Meng Weng Wong, 11:34
- Re: SRS and sendmail, Justin Mason, 11:04
- RE: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Marc Alaia, 09:45
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Wechsler, 09:33
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Thomas R. Stephenson, 09:32
- Adoption Roll Update, Wechsler, 09:23
- Re: implementation question, Jim Ramsay, 09:13
- Re: SRS and sendmail, Meng Weng Wong, 09:10
- Re: implementation question, Wechsler, 09:02
- RE: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Marc Alaia, 09:00
- Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Root, 08:51
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:50
- Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Root, 08:39
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Alain Knaff, 08:38
- Re: Other forwarders, wayne, 08:35
- RE: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, jsb, 08:21
- Re: Other forwarders, John Capo, 08:16
- Re: Re: implementation question, wayne, 08:14
- Re: New DNS record issue., John Capo, 07:58
- Re: implementation question, Thomas R. Stephenson, 07:54
- Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Root, 07:52
- Re: Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., wayne, 07:51
- Re: implementation question, Jim Ramsay, 07:45
- Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Root, 07:38
- Re: implementation question, wayne, 07:29
- Mail with suspicious HTML tag discarded., Root, 07:29
- Re: New DNS record issue., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:27
- Re: implementation question, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:26
- Re: New DNS record issue., guillaume, 06:33
- Re: implementation question, Dan Boresjo, 06:13
- Re: (foreign language encoded in ) Re: the inevitability of SRS, Roy Badami, 03:58
- Re: implementation question, Wechsler, 03:34
- Re: New DNS record issue., Alain Knaff, 03:30
- Re: New DNS record issue., Wechsler, 03:27
- Re: New DNS record issue., geoffj, 03:08
- SPF in action, Dirk Van Mieghem, 03:03
- Re: New DNS record issue., Ask Bjørn Hansen, 02:32
- RE: New DNS record issue., geoffj, 02:16
- Re: (foreign language encoded in ) Re: the inevitability of SRS, Anthony Howe, 02:15
- SRS and sendmail, Mark Tranchant, 02:10
- RE: implementation question, Dirk Van Mieghem, 01:47
- Re: New DNS record issue., Greg Connor, 01:10
January 13, 2004
- Re: (foreign language encoded in ) Re: the inevitability of SRS, wayne, 22:49
- Re: Other forwarders, wayne, 22:08
- Re: (foreign language encoded in ) Re: the inevitability of SRS, wayne, 21:58
- Re: Other forwarders, Philip Gladstone, 21:48
- Re: Other forwarders, Philip Gladstone, 21:30
- Re: Other forwarders, wayne, 21:23
- RE: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:23
- Re: Other forwarders, Meng Weng Wong, 20:19
- Other forwarders, Philip Gladstone, 20:12
- Re: (foreign language encoded in ) Re: the inevitability of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 20:12
- Re: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Jason Buchanan, 20:09
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 19:45
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Ask Bjørn Hansen, 19:44
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Bob Tanner, 19:21
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Philip Gladstone, 19:21
- MX and TXT, Marc Alaia, 19:03
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 18:27
- Re: IMX Records, Meng Weng Wong, 17:49
- Re: IMX Records, Rick Stewart, 17:47
- Re: IMX Records, Meng Weng Wong, 17:43
- IMX Records, Rick Stewart, 17:33
- Re: implementation question, Meng Weng Wong, 16:08
- Re: implementation question, Justin Mason, 16:01
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Thomas R. Stephenson, 15:58
- RE: New DNS record issue., Dustin D. Trammell, 15:25
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Roy Badami, 15:25
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Meng Weng Wong, 15:08
- alternative solution to the forwarding problem: "Forwarded" header, Roy Badami, 15:04
- Re: implementation question, Meng Weng Wong, 14:59
- RE: SPF library?, James Couzens, 14:30
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, jsb, 14:24
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Kelson Vibber, 14:21
- Re: New DNS record issue., Mark Lentczner, 14:03
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Don Andrews, 13:53
- RE: [OT] Bug in Digest Version, Marc Alaia, 13:48
- Re: Unsolicited bulk email discarded., Phil Howard, 13:46
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Don Andrews, 13:40
- Re: implementation question, Roger, 13:39
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., jsb, 13:34
- RE: New DNS record issue., Richard Hansen, 13:30
- Re: [OT] Bug in Digest Version, Meng Weng Wong, 13:29
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Don Andrews, 13:28
- [OT] Bug in Digest Version, Jon Bertrand, 13:20
- Re: MX and TXT, Don Andrews, 12:56
- Re: The path to a PKI architecture, Phil Howard, 12:50
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Phil Howard, 12:46
- Re: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Phil Howard, 12:42
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Phil Howard, 12:31
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 12:27
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 12:19
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 12:13
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 12:04
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Thomas R. Stephenson, 12:03
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 11:59
- Re: implementation question, Kelson Vibber, 11:58
- RE: SPF library?, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:57
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 11:53
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Matt Perry, 11:51
- Re: New DNS record issue., John Capo, 11:50
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 11:41
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Marc Alaia, 11:37
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Matt Perry, 11:37
- Re: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alain Knaff, 11:37
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 11:35
- implementation question, Roger, 11:33
- RE: Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Marc Alaia, 11:29
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard, 11:25
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Vivien M., 11:18
- Re: New DNS record issue., wayne, 11:02
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:53
- Re: New DNS record issue., John Capo, 10:45
- Re: New DNS record issue., John Capo, 10:40
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Sean Comeau, 10:33
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 10:27
- Re: Unsolicited bulk email discarded., Jason, 10:24
- RE: New DNS record issue., Tim Gladding, 10:24
- Re: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Weldon Whipple, 10:22
- Re: Unsolicited bulk email discarded., Meng Weng Wong, 10:15
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, John Capo, 10:11
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:08
- Re: New DNS record issue., Wechsler, 10:07
- Re: New DNS record issue., wayne, 10:06
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Anthony Howe, 10:03
- Unsolicited bulk email discarded., Root, 10:02
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Thomas R. Stephenson, 10:01
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:55
- Re: New DNS record issue., Wechsler, 09:45
- Re: New DNS record issue., Mark Lentczner, 09:44
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Roy Badami, 09:40
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Thomas R. Stephenson, 09:29
- Re: New DNS record issue., guillaume, 09:16
- RE: Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Thomas R. Stephenson, 08:54
- Re: New DNS record issue., wayne, 08:50
- RE: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:45
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, wayne, 08:43
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:42
- Re: the inevitability of SRS, Anthony Howe, 08:39
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Andy Lester, 08:33
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dan Boresjo, 08:30
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 08:16
- RE: New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:15
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Dan Boresjo, 08:14
- Re: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Philip Gladstone, 08:12
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., wayne, 08:08
- Re: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Meng Weng Wong, 08:04
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Jim Ramsay, 08:03
- Re: New DNS record issue., Meng Weng Wong, 08:01
- RE: The path to a PKI architecture, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:58
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, wayne, 07:56
- Re[2]: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Chris Drake, 07:54
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Dan Boresjo, 07:52
- Re: New DNS record issue., wayne, 07:51
- Re: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Meng Weng Wong, 07:42
- RE: SPF + Challenge/Response, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:42
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, tv+spf, 07:41
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, tv+spf, 07:40
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Mark, 07:37
- New DNS record issue., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:37
- The path to a PKI architecture, Meng Weng Wong, 07:35
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Dan Boresjo, 07:30
- Re[4]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Chris Drake, 07:29
- RE: What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS look up?, Marc Alaia, 07:26
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Dan Boresjo, 07:26
- What is the QUERY_TYPE code for an SPF DNS lookup?, Chris Drake, 07:21
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Alain Knaff, 07:19
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Marc Alaia, 07:15
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Carsten Kuckuk, 07:14
- the inevitability of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 07:14
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Anthony Howe, 07:13
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Alain Knaff, 07:11
- RE: SPF + Challenge/Response, Marc Alaia, 07:08
- Re[2]: SPF + Challenge/Response, Chris Drake, 07:07
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Ask Bjørn Hansen, 07:07
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, Alain Knaff, 07:05
- RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Vivien M., 07:04
- Re: SPF + Challenge/Response, wayne, 07:02
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Chris Drake, 07:01
- RE: SPF + Challenge/Response, Marc Alaia, 06:59
- RE: SPF + Challenge/Response, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:55
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Anthony Howe, 06:51
- SPF + Challenge/Response, Marc Alaia, 06:51
- Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:50
- RE: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:45
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:42
- RE: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidi ty., Marc Alaia, 06:40
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Wechsler, 06:27
- RE: Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Marc Alaia, 06:26
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:25
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., wayne, 06:21
- Re[4]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:20
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Mark Tranchant, 06:19
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:18
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:17
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 06:15
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:13
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:09
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Greg Connor, 06:08
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 06:06
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 06:01
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 06:01
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 06:01
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel, 06:01
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding, 06:00
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel, 06:00
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:55
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:52
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rob Kaper, 05:47
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:43
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Graham Murray, 05:39
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Anthony Howe, 05:38
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding, 05:38
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:38
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo, 05:37
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:37
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Mark Tranchant, 05:36
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:31
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 05:23
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:19
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Wechsler, 05:13
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel, 05:02
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 04:58
- Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake, 04:56
- Syntax of SPF exp modifier?, Mark Tranchant, 03:22
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Wechsler, 00:37
January 12, 2004
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Alain Knaff, 23:16
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Meng Weng Wong, 22:30
- Re: MX and TXT, geoffj, 22:29
- Re: MX and TXT, Brian Hatch, 22:02
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Chuck Wolber, 20:46
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, wayne, 20:12
- Re: SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, Mark, 19:41
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future: pki a ccreditation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:34
- Re: MX and TXT, geoffj, 19:19
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future: pki a ccreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 18:38
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future: pki a ccreditation, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:36
- RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Julian Mehnle, 18:21
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future: pki accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 18:19
- Re: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Kelson Vibber, 18:02
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Greg Connor, 17:51
- Re: RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Phil Howard, 17:49
- Re: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Spot The Dog, 17:48
- Re: MX and TXT, Greg Connor, 17:35
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 17:31
- Re: MX and TXT, Alan Hodgson, 17:31
- Re: SPF detecting forgeries of smaller domains, John Capo, 17:22
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 17:20
- Re: MX and TXT, geoffj, 17:19
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 17:01
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 16:59
- Re: SPF detecting forgeries of smaller domains, Rob Kaper, 16:31
- SPF detecting forgeries of smaller domains, Meng Weng Wong, 16:23
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, wayne, 14:40
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 14:39
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:32
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 14:14
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, wayne, 14:13
- Re: Question about extending SPF, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:07
- Re: RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Meng Weng Wong, 13:59
- RE: OT: Spam traps, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:43
- RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Julian Mehnle, 13:43
- Re: Re: Question about extending SPF, Wechsler, 13:37
- RE: RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:36
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:34
- RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Julian Mehnle, 13:33
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 13:33
- Re: OT: Spam traps, wayne, 13:23
- Re: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:21
- RE: OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:20
- Re: Question about extending SPF, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:18
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, wayne, 13:17
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:16
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 13:03
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:01
- RE: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Rik van Riel, 12:49
- Re: Question about extending SPF, wayne, 12:44
- OT: Spam traps (was: Forwarders), Julian Mehnle, 12:40
- Question about extending SPF, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 12:33
- SPF for Sendmail - milter setup help, jsb, 11:52
- Re: alternative solution to the forwarding problem: "Forwarded" header, Weldon Whipple, 11:40
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 11:20
- Re: RE: Forwarders, wayne, 11:06
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dan Boresjo, 11:03
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Kelson Vibber, 10:49
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem by Implementing SRS in Postfix, Kelson Vibber, 10:46
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Kelson Vibber, 10:42
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, wayne, 10:42
- Re: how blacklisting will work in the future, wayne, 10:35
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Meng Weng Wong, 10:26
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Jonathan Steinert, 10:24
- RE: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, spf, 10:17
- RE: how blacklisting will work in the future, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:11
- Re: RE: Forwarders, wayne, 10:00
- RE: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Marc Alaia, 09:29
- Re: wiki, Meng Weng Wong, 09:26
- RE: Forwarders, Julian Mehnle, 09:06
- RE: Forwarders, Julian Mehnle, 09:00
- how blacklisting will work in the future, Meng Weng Wong, 08:37
- Re: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 08:32
- RE: Forwarders, Julian Mehnle, 08:31
- Re: RE: Forwarders, R. Scott Perry, 08:30
- Re: RE: Forwarders, wayne, 08:25
- Re: RE: Forwarders, R. Scott Perry, 08:18
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 08:11
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 08:07
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 08:01
- Re: wiki, Wechsler, 07:56
- Re: RE: Forwarders, wayne, 07:35
- RE: Forwarders, Julian Mehnle, 07:34
- Re: RE: Forwarders, R. Scott Perry, 06:43
- Re: RE: Forwarders, R. Scott Perry, 06:43
- RE: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:40
- Re: RE: Forwarders, R. Scott Perry, 06:06
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 05:46
- Re: RE: Forwarders, Rik van Riel, 05:42
- RE: Forwarders, Julian Mehnle, 05:33
- Re: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 03:01
- Re: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 02:54
- Re: Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Gerald Oskoboiny, 01:40
- Re: MX and TXT, Greg Connor, 01:25
- Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., Greg Connor, 01:11
- Re: Solving the Forwarding Problem by Implementing SRS in Postfix, Greg Connor, 00:52
January 11, 2004
- Re: Forwarders, Greg Connor, 23:56
- Re: alternative solution to the forwarding problem: "Forwarded" header, Ask Bjørn Hansen, 23:55
- alternative solution to the forwarding problem: "Forwarded" header, Meng Weng Wong, 23:45
- Is anyone going to the MIT spam conference?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:41
- Re: MX and TXT, Meng Weng Wong, 23:18
- Re: MX and TXT, geoffj, 23:09
- HTML messages not accepted., Anthony Howe, 22:27
- Re: MX and TXT, geoffj, 22:23
- Re: MX and TXT, wayne, 22:14
- Re: MX and TXT, Meng Weng Wong, 22:12
- Re: OT: List Ettiquette [ Was: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX], Bob Proulx, 22:11
- MX and TXT, geoffj, 22:02
- Re: OT: List Ettiquette [ Was: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX], Kelson Vibber, 21:46
- Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., wayne, 21:18
- RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Chuck Wolber, 21:00
- OT: List Ettiquette [ Was: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX], Chuck Wolber, 20:53
- Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., Dan Boresjo, 20:51
- what is an RHSBL?, Meng Weng Wong, 20:30
- Re: Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., G. Roderick Singleton, 20:26
- Re: Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., Mark, 20:14
- Re: Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., Matt Perry, 19:58
- Welcome new subscribers. I have a dream., Meng Weng Wong, 19:36
- Re: Forwarders, tv+spf, 18:04
- Re: Forwarders, tv+spf, 18:01
- Re: Forwarders, Dan Boresjo, 17:41
- Re: Forwarders, wayne, 16:42
- Re: Forwarders, spf, 16:26
- RE: Forwarders, Arik Baratz, 16:26
- Re: Forwarders, Dr. Ernst Molitor, 15:59
- Re: Forwarders, Meng Weng Wong, 12:37
- Solving the Forwarding Problem by Implementing SRS in Postfix, Meng Weng Wong, 12:17
- Re: Forwarders, Phil Howard, 12:04
- Re: macro expansion syntax, Seun Osewa, 07:21
- Re: Secondary MX and sendmail-milter, Alain Knaff, 02:19
- Secondary MX and sendmail-milter, Graham Murray, 01:55
January 10, 2004
- Re: wiki, Karl J. Smith, 18:56
- wiki, Meng Weng Wong, 18:29
- Re: Forwarders, Greg Connor, 12:50
- spf-devel list, Jim Ramsay, 11:25
- Re: macro expansion syntax, Terence Way, 11:23
- Re: macro expansion syntax, Seun Osewa, 11:02
- Re: what to do about subdomains?, wayne, 08:47
- Re: macro expansion syntax, wayne, 08:34
- Re: macro expansion syntax, John Warren, 06:52
- Re: what to do about subdomains?, Aredridel, 01:00
January 09, 2004
- Re: Good day for SPF, Aredridel, 21:58
- Re: SPF library?, Phil Howard, 21:35
- libspf - ANSI C spf library w/ unix MTA patch(es), James Couzens, 19:17
- Re: Forwarders, wayne, 18:51
- Re: SPF and reputation schemes, Dan Boresjo, 18:46
- Forwarders, seph, 18:21
- Re: Good day for SPF, wayne, 17:36
- Re: Re: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Meng Weng Wong, 17:25
- Re: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Mark, 17:20
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, wayne, 17:13
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Tim Gladding, 16:15
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Hans Dieter Pearcey, 16:05
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, wayne, 16:01
- Re: SPF library?, matthew-list, 15:36
- Qwestions about SRS, Jeremy Rossi, 14:40
- Re: SRS Question, Jim Ramsay, 14:34
- Re: SRS Question, Jim Ramsay, 14:12
- Re: SPF library?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:16
- Re: SRS Question, Meng Weng Wong, 13:14
- RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Julian Mehnle, 12:54
- SPF library?, Phil Howard, 12:31
- SPF and reputation schemes, Dan Nadir, 12:30
- Re: Good day for SPF, ty lammy, 12:26
- SRS Question, Jim Ramsay, 12:25
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, John Capo, 11:50
- Re: ip6 mechanism syntax, Phil Howard, 11:39
- Re: "none" versus "unknown", Meng Weng Wong, 11:38
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Bill Landry, 11:37
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Kenneth Porter, 11:24
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Kenneth Porter, 11:23
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Meng Weng Wong, 11:10
- Re: SPF IPv6 nit: A and MX mechanisms, Meng Weng Wong, 10:56
- SPF IPv6 nit: A and MX mechanisms, tv+spf, 10:51
- Re: RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Philip Gladstone, 09:48
- Re: IPv6 Support, Jasper Wallace, 09:29
- Re: IPv6 Support, Colin Whittaker, 09:23
- RE: RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Kenn Humborg, 09:21
- Re: IPv6 Support, Jasper Wallace, 09:12
- Re: SPF mailing list archives, Alain Knaff, 09:12
- Re: RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, R. Scott Perry, 09:12
- Re: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Alain Knaff, 09:10
- Re: RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Alain Knaff, 09:07
- SPF mailing list archives, wayne, 09:01
- Re: secondary MX, Alain Knaff, 09:01
- SPF discuss on the Postfix Users List, Bill Landry, 09:01
- RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Julian Mehnle, 09:00
- Re: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Meng Weng Wong, 09:00
- secondary MX, Meng Weng Wong, 08:58
- spammers sending through an ISP's mail server, Meng Weng Wong, 08:55
- RE: sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Marc Alaia, 08:55
- sendmail-milter-spf-1.1.pl script and secondary MX, Alain Knaff, 08:49
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, John Capo, 08:41
- Re: Re: improving Received-SPF, R. Scott Perry, 08:19
- IPv6 Support, Colin Whittaker, 08:13
- Clarification on forwarding, Alex Rosen, 08:12
- Re: "none" versus "unknown", John A. Martin, 08:09
- Re: improving Received-SPF, Jim Ramsay, 08:07
- RE: "none" versus "unknown", Marc Alaia, 07:56
- Offtopic: List archives a potential spam source?, spf-disc, 07:43
- Re: Question on SPF, Philip Gladstone, 07:39
- Re: RE: improving Received-SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:24
- RE: TXT record in Windows DNS?, Dirk Van Mieghem, 07:03
- RE: improving Received-SPF, Julian Mehnle, 06:56
- TXT record in Windows DNS?, Matt, 06:56
- Re: Good day for SPF, Wechsler, 06:53
- Re: Question on SPF, John Warren, 06:37
- Question on SPF, Matt, 06:27
- Re: Good day for SPF, wayne, 06:26
- Re: ip6 mechanism syntax, R. Scott Perry, 06:08
- Re: Good day for SPF, Wechsler, 05:50
- Slashdoted (again), guillaume, 05:35
- Re: Good day for SPF, Rob Kaper, 05:29
- Good day for SPF, Wechsler, 05:08
- Guess who just got slashdotted?, James Couzens, 02:50
- adoption path: steady state, Meng Weng Wong, 00:27
- Re: what to do about subdomains?, Meng Weng Wong, 00:19
- "none" versus "unknown", Meng Weng Wong, 00:02
January 08, 2004
- Re: macro expansion syntax, wayne, 23:52
- macro expansion syntax, Phil Howard, 23:40
- Re: SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, wayne, 23:21
- ip6 mechanism syntax, Phil Howard, 23:12
- SPF @ AOL --- record may flicker, Meng Weng Wong, 22:32
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, wayne, 21:47
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, wayne, 19:14
- Re: improving Received-SPF, Jim Ramsay, 17:37
- Re: what to do about subdomains?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:41
- what to do about subdomains?, Philip Gladstone, 16:37
- Re: SPF Advocacy, John A. Martin, 15:22
- Re: Re: improving Received-SPF, Philip Gladstone, 15:21
- SPF Advocacy, Marc Alaia, 14:50
- Re: improving Received-SPF, Jim Ramsay, 14:38
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 13:52
- Re: Re: improving Received-SPF, Philip Gladstone, 13:51
- RE: SPF adoption: stats needed, Marc Alaia, 13:49
- SPF-pass in the Received-SPF line, Tim Freeman, 13:19
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Kelson Vibber, 13:06
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 12:24
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 12:23
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Kelson Vibber, 12:23
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Tim Gladding, 12:19
- Re: SPF adoption: stats needed, Kelson Vibber, 11:32
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Meng Weng Wong, 11:22
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Richard Kay, 11:20
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Hans Dieter Pearcey, 11:00
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, wayne, 10:59
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, wayne, 10:52
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Dan Boresjo, 10:37
- Re: SPF adoption: stats needed, David Saez, 10:32
- Re: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, John A. Martin, 10:29
- RE: major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Philip Tucker, 10:05
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Philip Gladstone, 09:55
- Re: improving Received-SPF, Jim Ramsay, 09:54
- Re: SPF adoption: stats needed, Bill Landry, 09:41
- Re: SPF adoption: stats needed, John Capo, 09:21
- Re: SPF adoption: stats needed, Jason, 09:03
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Meng Weng Wong, 08:52
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Philip Gladstone, 08:46
- major forwarders in trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 08:18
- Re: SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Meng Weng Wong, 08:09
- SPF adoption: stats needed, Meng Weng Wong, 07:47
- Re: Re: Great stuff, Andreas Kreuzinger, 07:09
- Re: "pass" vs SPF-pass in the Received-SPF line, Rob Kaper, 06:01
- SPF for Sendmail, without milter - preferably a ruleset, Jason Buchanan, 05:17
- RE: "pass" vs SPF-pass in the Received-SPF line, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:07
- RE: SPF needing buy-in from Big Four, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:04
- Re: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Greg Connor, 01:27
January 07, 2004
- improving Received-SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 22:03
- Re: Comment on RFC draft, section 9.1, Philip Gladstone, 21:56
- Comment on RFC draft, section 9.1, Jim Ramsay, 20:32
- Re: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Meng Weng Wong, 18:00
- Re: Re: Great stuff, John Capo, 12:15
- RE: "pass" vs "SPF-pass" in the Received-SPF line, Arik Baratz, 12:08
- Re: Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 11:21
- "pass" vs "SPF-pass" in the Received-SPF line, Tim Freeman, 10:44
- Re: Re: Great stuff, John Capo, 09:42
- overcounting MX servers, Meng Weng Wong, 09:04
- Re: Great stuff, seph, 08:53
- Re: Re: Great stuff, Kenneth Porter, 07:50
- SPF on SPAM-L, wayne, 07:31
- Re: Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 07:31
- Re: Re: Great stuff, Will Lowe, 01:16
- Re: Re: Great stuff, Greg Connor, 00:09
January 06, 2004
- Re: Re: Great stuff, wayne, 23:27
- Re: Using exists: to find remote senders?, Greg Connor, 18:29
- Re: SPF needing buy-in from Big Four, B. Johannessen, 17:49
- RE: Re: Great stuff, Dustin D. Trammell, 16:30
- SPF needing buy-in from Big Four, Meng Weng Wong, 15:48
- Re: Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 15:45
- RE: Re: Great stuff, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:26
- RE: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:18
- Re: Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 15:07
- Re: Challenge-Response as fallback, Jim Ramsay, 14:59
- Re: Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 14:57
- RE: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:55
- Re: Using exists: to find remote senders?, Kelson Vibber, 13:57
- Re: Using exists: to find remote senders?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:56
- Re: Challenge-Response as fallback, Dan Boresjo, 13:52
- Re: Great stuff, wayne, 13:42
- getting SPF into distributions, Meng Weng Wong, 13:35
- Re: Great stuff, R. Scott Perry, 13:29
- Re: Using exists: to find remote senders?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:16
- Great stuff, Jim Ramsay, 13:14
- Using exists: to find remote senders?, Kelson Vibber, 13:09
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, wayne, 07:18
January 05, 2004
- Re: header != RFC compliant?, B. Johannessen, 21:19
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, B. Johannessen, 21:07
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Phil Howard, 21:04
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:19
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 16:13
- Re: Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Eric S. Raymond, 16:05
- Steve Bellovin comments on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 15:52
- Re: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Greg Connor, 15:41
- RE: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Kelson Vibber, 15:16
- Re: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Rob Kaper, 15:15
- RE: SPF articles for Linux Journal, Arik Baratz, 14:33
- header != RFC compliant?, Mark Foster, 12:54
- SPF articles for Linux Journal, Meng Weng Wong, 12:44