SPF Discuss (date)
February 29, 2004
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, list+spf-discuss, 16:55
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:03
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:48
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 14:08
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 13:39
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, David Brodbeck, 13:14
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Jon Kyme, 13:05
- Re: BoF to be multicasted, Meng Weng Wong, 12:07
- Re: Deployment dynamic: LMAP vs MTA registration schemes, Dan Boresjo, 11:26
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 09:32
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:32
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 08:59
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark, 08:48
- Re: Re: Design choice vs loophole, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:14
- Re: Design choice vs loophole, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 07:17
- Design choice vs loophole, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:36
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 05:59
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, list+spf-discuss, 05:40
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark, 05:20
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 05:07
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 04:43
- Re: Deployment dynamic: LMAP vs MTA registration schemes, David Woodhouse, 04:06
- Re: Deployment dynamic: LMAP vs MTA registration schemes, Dan Boresjo, 04:03
February 28, 2004
- Re: Deployment dynamic: LMAP vs MTA registration schemes, Hector Santos, 23:48
- RFC suggestions: unpatented, disreputable, whitelisting/SRS, David A. Wheeler, 23:43
- Deployment dynamic: LMAP vs MTA registration schemes, Meng Weng Wong, 18:49
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Greg Wooledge, 16:28
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, list+spf-discuss, 14:32
- Re: Interesting SPF RECORD - altavista.com, spf, 12:28
- Interesting SPF RECORD - altavista.com, Hector Santos, 12:08
- MEDIA: caller-id/dk/spf story on AP, picked up by CNN, Meng Weng Wong, 12:04
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, David Woodhouse, 11:17
- Re: Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Daniel Roethlisberger, 10:32
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, John A. Martin, 10:25
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Daniel Roethlisberger, 09:46
- Re: BBC Story, Meng Weng Wong, 09:42
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, list+spf-discuss, 09:33
- Re: General Status of SPF, Andrew W . Donoho, 08:28
- BBC Story, Roy Badami, 08:28
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:48
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Mark, 04:39
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:21
- ANNOUNCE: libsrs v0.3 beta - x86-64 and *BSD support, James Couzens, 03:08
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, list+spf-discuss, 00:20
February 27, 2004
- Signed Envelope Sender: moving back to srs-discuss, Meng Weng Wong, 23:18
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Mark, 20:30
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 18:04
- Re: Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, David Woodhouse, 17:08
- Signed Envelope Sender: SRS on steroids, Meng Weng Wong, 16:40
- Re: General Status of SPF, David Woodhouse, 16:14
- BBC Story, Meng Weng Wong, 15:16
- Re: General Status of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 14:49
- Re: General Status of SPF, David Woodhouse, 14:19
- Re: General Status of SPF (forwarding and rewriting), Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:05
- Re: General Status of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:52
- Re: General Status of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 12:55
- Re: General Status of SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:40
- Re: Digest 1.201 for spf-discuss, administrator, 12:16
- Re: SPF Server, David Brodbeck, 11:59
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, discussion-lists, 11:45
- Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Server (DMP-style), Meng Weng Wong, 11:34
- Re: SPF Server, wayne, 11:10
- Re: SPF Server, Casey West, 11:03
- SPF Server, administrator, 10:56
- Re: General Status of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 09:40
- Re: General Status of SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:57
- Re: General Status of SPF, David Woodhouse, 03:30
- Re: General Status of SPF, David Woodhouse, 03:29
February 26, 2004
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 18:59
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark, 18:55
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Kelson Vibber, 18:31
- Re: General Status of SPF, Theo Schlossnagle, 18:22
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 17:45
- ANNOUNCE: Mail::SPF::Query 1.994, "oops, minor bugfix", Meng Weng Wong, 15:58
- Re: General Status of SPF, Andrew W . Donoho, 15:39
- Re: General Status of SPF, Laszlo Toth, 13:47
- Re: General Status of SPF, Bourque Daniel, 13:36
- Re: General Status of SPF, Dan Boresjo, 13:35
- Re: General Status of SPF, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 13:15
- Re: General Status of SPF, David Woodhouse, 12:54
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 11:29
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 11:12
- General Status of SPF, Laszlo Toth, 11:10
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark, 10:40
- Re: Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 10:34
- Re: ANNOUNCE: Mail::SPF::Query 1.992 and 1.993 released with Caller-ID support, Randy Pearson, 08:44
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Jim Ramsay, 08:12
- Re: Exim, Mail-SPF-Query & fetchmail, Jasmin Buchert, 05:50
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Roy Badami, 05:04
- silicon.com news article on CID/DK/SPF, Roy Badami, 04:25
- Re: ANNOUNCE: Mail::SPF::Query 1.992 and 1.993 released with Caller-ID support, Ernesto Baschny, 01:43
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 01:18
- Re: ANNOUNCE: Mail::SPF::Query 1.992 and 1.993 released with Caller-ID support, Ernesto Baschny, 00:37
February 25, 2004
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 22:51
- accreditation versus reputation, Meng Weng Wong, 22:41
- ANNOUNCE: Mail::SPF::Query 1.992 and 1.993 released with Caller-ID support, Meng Weng Wong, 21:37
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 19:19
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 17:28
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 17:07
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Greg Wooledge, 17:04
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Matthew Barr, 14:02
- SV: on moving from heuristics toward certainty, Lars Dybdahl, 13:46
- Re: MS will announce Caller-ID next Tuesday, list+spf-discuss, 13:33
- Caller ID and patents, Michael Fischer v. Mollard, 13:19
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, list+spf-discuss, 13:03
- Re: on moving from heuristics toward certainty, David Brodbeck, 12:55
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, list+spf-discuss, 12:55
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, list+spf-discuss, 12:49
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, list+spf-discuss, 12:46
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, wayne, 12:24
- Re: how the board might look a few moves ahead, Meng Weng Wong, 12:23
- how the board might look a few moves ahead, Meng Weng Wong, 12:16
- body hashing (was Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF), Justin Mason, 12:04
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, David Woodhouse, 12:02
- Re: on moving from heuristics toward certainty, Fridrik Skulason, 11:53
- Re: on moving from heuristics toward certainty, wayne, 11:42
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, wayne, 11:39
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 11:39
- Re: on moving from heuristics toward certainty, David Woodhouse, 11:39
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:24
- on moving from heuristics toward certainty, Meng Weng Wong, 11:22
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, David Woodhouse, 11:20
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:13
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, David Woodhouse, 11:12
- Re: SPF vs MS-Caller-ID, Meng Weng Wong, 10:59
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Justin Mason, 10:59
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Justin Mason, 10:55
- Re: SPF vs MS-Caller-ID, Ernesto Baschny, 10:53
- Re: SPF vs MS-Caller-ID, wayne, 10:53
- SV: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Lars Dybdahl, 10:37
- SPF vs MS-Caller-ID, Ernesto Baschny, 10:32
- technical comparison, Caller-ID and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:25
- Re: cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, wayne, 10:19
- cost comparison of Caller-ID, DK, and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:07
- Re: amazon.com has published SPF (and Caller-ID), Ernesto Baschny, 09:43
- amazon.com has published SPF (and Caller-ID), Meng Weng Wong, 09:18
- RELEASE libspf v0.24 beta, James Couzens, 08:26
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Lloyd Zusman, 07:52
- Re: Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Fridrik Skulason, 07:41
- Re: Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, David Brodbeck, 07:32
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Lloyd Zusman, 07:25
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Fridrik Skulason, 07:16
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide aloophole?, Mark, 06:55
- Re: MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), Matt Sergeant, 06:36
- Re: MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), Ernesto Baschny, 06:32
- Re: MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), wayne, 06:26
- Re: MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), Ernesto Baschny, 06:16
- Re: MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), Ernesto Baschny, 05:34
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark, 04:55
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, David Woodhouse, 04:09
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Mark, 03:45
- Re: This is why we chose not to use underscores, Matt Sergeant, 03:26
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Matt Sergeant, 03:15
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 03:09
- MS-Caller-ID to SPF converter (cid2spf.pl), Ernesto Baschny, 03:05
- Re: Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, David Woodhouse, 02:01
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Ernesto Baschny, 01:21
February 24, 2004
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Greg Connor, 23:29
- media: story in eWeek about spf and caller-id, mengwong, 23:27
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, wayne, 23:14
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Seth Goodman, 17:03
- Why keep people thinking HELO checks provide a loophole?, Mark, 17:01
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Mark, 16:42
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Meng Weng Wong, 16:15
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Hector Santos, 16:03
- Re: Redirect/Include Restriction --> was Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Hector Santos, 16:01
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Mark, 15:47
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 15:22
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, wayne, 15:09
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Dustin D. Trammell, 14:58
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Mark Shewmaker, 14:55
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, Meng Weng Wong, 14:54
- This is why we chose not to use underscores, Meng Weng Wong, 14:52
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Dustin D. Trammell, 14:52
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, David Woodhouse, 14:51
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, wayne, 14:51
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, Meng Weng Wong, 14:47
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 14:44
- Re: review of the MS Caller-ID draft, wayne, 14:44
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Seth Goodman, 14:03
- review of the MS Caller-ID draft, Meng Weng Wong, 14:01
- Re: MS will announce Caller-ID next Tuesday, John Capo, 13:46
- Re: MS will announce Caller-ID next Tuesday, John Capo, 13:43
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Mark Shewmaker, 13:32
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 13:05
- RE: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:54
- RE: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:51
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:47
- Re: MS will announce Caller-ID next Tuesday, Meng Weng Wong, 11:25
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Ernesto Baschny, 10:55
- MS will announce Caller-ID next Tuesday, wayne, 10:48
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Brian Candler, 10:41
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Meng Weng Wong, 10:16
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, wayne, 10:08
- Re: how to protect the HELO using SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:08
- how to protect the HELO using SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 09:59
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Ernesto Baschny, 09:54
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Ernesto Baschny, 09:41
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 09:40
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Hector Santos, 09:36
- Re: Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, Ernesto Baschny, 09:28
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Theo Schlossnagle, 09:27
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, David Woodhouse, 09:26
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, wayne, 09:20
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Meng Weng Wong, 09:12
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 09:10
- Re: Practical implementation of SRS for Exim 4., wayne, 09:06
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Ernesto Baschny, 09:05
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Seth Goodman, 09:00
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 08:59
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Meng Weng Wong, 08:55
- Sendmail.com announces they are working on DomainKeys with Yahoo, wayne, 08:54
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, wayne, 08:50
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Meng Weng Wong, 08:39
- RE: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Seth Goodman, 08:35
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Brian Candler, 08:06
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Hector Santos, 07:56
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Hector Santos, 07:28
- Practical implementation of SRS for Exim 4., David Woodhouse, 06:11
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, wayne, 04:18
- Re: More on Philosophy of SPF, wayne, 04:00
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Frank Segtrop, 03:29
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Brian Candler, 02:49
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Ernesto Baschny, 02:13
February 23, 2004
- Re: the role of the HELO domain, Hector Santos, 21:53
- the role of the HELO domain, Meng Weng Wong, 21:27
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 21:21
- Announcement: libspf-alt, a second generation SPF implementation, wayne, 20:46
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Dustin D. Trammell, 16:32
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Meng Weng Wong, 14:12
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 13:29
- SPF timings and statistics., Theo Schlossnagle, 13:02
- Re: Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Meng Weng Wong, 12:51
- Possible SPF machine-domain loophole???, Hector Santos, 12:14
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 02/23/04, Wayne Schlitt, 09:02
- new "Mail Flows" document, Meng Weng Wong, 00:33
February 22, 2004
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 20:43
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:57
- Please Move SRS Discussion To SRS-Discuss; Linux Journal diagram, Meng Weng Wong, 14:35
- Re: [spf-discuss] A couple of thoughts, Mark, 12:22
- Re: Sender Rewriting Scheme and open relays., Shevek, 10:56
- Re: Sender Rewriting Scheme and open relays., Meng Weng Wong, 10:22
- Sender Rewriting Scheme and open relays., David Woodhouse, 10:09
- RE: DMP vs SPF, Marc Alaia, 07:32
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 04:13
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, Greg Connor, 03:49
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Connor, 03:21
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Connor, 03:17
- Re: Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Connor, 03:06
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Connor, 02:49
- Re: Performance issues, Greg Connor, 02:12
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Nick Phillips, 01:51
February 21, 2004
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:29
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Hector Santos, 17:23
- Re: DMP vs SPF, George Schlossnagle, 17:08
- RE: DMP vs SPF, Marc Alaia, 17:01
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:39
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Hector Santos, 15:35
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Hector Santos, 15:19
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Mark, 10:54
- Re: DMP vs SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 08:54
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 07:54
- Re: DMP vs SPF, wayne, 07:49
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Greg Wooledge, 07:45
- DMP vs SPF, Hector Santos, 05:16
- Re: "Extreme SPF" part II, Brian Candler, 03:50
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 03:45
- Re: header forgery concern..., Brian Candler, 03:43
February 20, 2004
- Example of SPF "neutral" host with "bad reputation", Hector Santos, 23:27
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 22:12
- ANNOUNCE: libsrs v0.2 beta, James Couzens, 20:41
- Re: Re: ANNOUNCE: srs-discuss mailing list has been created, tv+spf, 20:41
- SPF TXT record compression schemes, etc, Meng Weng Wong, 17:27
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, James Couzens, 16:47
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Dustin D. Trammell, 15:52
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, "Zámbori, Zoltán", 15:50
- Re: header forgery concern..., Hector Santos, 14:08
- Re: header forgery concern..., Hector Santos, 13:30
- "Extreme SPF" part II, Meng Weng Wong, 10:56
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 10:34
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 09:34
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 09:34
- Re: name server oddities, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 09:31
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 09:17
- Re: name server oddities, Simon Woodward, 08:38
- RE: name server oddities, Marc Alaia, 08:23
- Re: name server oddities, wayne, 08:16
- Re: name server oddities, Simon Woodward, 08:12
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 08:09
- Re: name server oddities, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:04
- header forgery concern..., Tomasz Konefal, 07:45
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, David Brodbeck, 07:36
- Re: name server oddities, Simon Woodward, 07:34
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 07:34
- Re: name server oddities, wayne, 07:22
- name server oddities, Simon Woodward, 06:29
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Theo Schlossnagle, 06:20
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 04:00
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 03:58
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 03:43
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 03:36
- Re: Exim implementation of sender cookies, Brian Candler, 03:14
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:42
February 19, 2004
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Nick Phillips, 23:53
- Re: ANNOUNCE: srs-discuss mailing list has been created, John A. Martin, 23:34
- Re: nospamproxy.de announces support, Hector Santos, 19:27
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Hector Santos, 19:18
- ANNOUNCE: srs-discuss mailing list has been created, Meng Weng Wong, 17:48
- Re: nospamproxy.de announces support, Sanford Whiteman, 17:13
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:29
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Greg Wooledge, 16:07
- Re: Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, Shevek, 15:18
- RE: A couple of thoughts, Dustin D. Trammell, 15:07
- Re: A couple of thoughts, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:04
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 14:48
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 14:45
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 14:42
- Re: Re: SRS integration with qmail, wayne, 12:55
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, "Zámbori, Zoltán", 12:43
- Re: Re: SRS integration with qmail, mw-list-spf-discuss, 11:38
- Re: Exim implementation of sender cookies, Martin Treusch von Buttlar, 11:18
- Re: SRS integration with qmail, wayne, 10:33
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Hector Santos, 10:27
- Re: SRS integration with qmail (was: A couple of thoughts), mw-list-spf-discuss, 10:21
- Re: A couple of thoughts, wayne, 10:19
- Re: A couple of thoughts, mw-list-spf-discuss, 10:06
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Theo Schlossnagle, 10:02
- RE: A couple of thoughts, Dustin D. Trammell, 09:56
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Hector Santos, 09:53
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Dustin D. Trammell, 09:52
- Re: A couple of thoughts, wayne, 09:33
- Re: Exim implementation of sender cookies, wayne, 09:29
- Re: A couple of thoughts, mw-list-spf-discuss, 09:28
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 09:18
- Re: A couple of thoughts, mw-list-spf-discuss, 09:11
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Hector Santos, 09:08
- Exim implementation of sender cookies, Brian Candler, 09:07
- Re: Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, wayne, 08:38
- Re: tagging the return path from the get-go, mw-list-spf-discuss, 08:31
- Re: Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, spf, 08:28
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 08:23
- Re: A couple of thoughts, wayne, 08:23
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Hector Santos, 08:08
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 08:00
- Re: A couple of thoughts, mw-list-spf-discuss, 07:25
- Re: SPF/SRS problem domain (was: SRS integration with qmail), Brian Candler, 04:47
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 04:24
- Re: SPF/SRS problem domain (was: SRS integration with qmail), Brian Candler, 04:11
- ANNOUNCE: Mail::SRS v0.25, Shevek, 04:09
- Re: nospamproxy.de announces support, Shevek, 02:30
February 18, 2004
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 21:39
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 21:34
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 21:20
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, James Couzens, 19:23
- nospamproxy.de announces support, Meng Weng Wong, 19:10
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 17:51
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Brian Candler, 17:17
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Brian Candler, 16:51
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Greg Wooledge, 16:20
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 16:13
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 15:37
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:36
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:30
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:03
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, mw-list-spf-discuss, 13:46
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, mw-list-spf-discuss, 13:32
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Daniel Roethlisberger, 11:31
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Shevek, 11:19
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Daniel Roethlisberger, 11:14
- Re: SRS and the 11 year period, mw-list-spf-discuss, 10:31
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, mw-list-spf-discuss, 10:12
- RE: Joe-Job Caught!, Marc Alaia, 10:07
- Joe-Job Caught!, Marc Alaia, 10:00
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:35
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 09:28
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 09:19
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:57
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 08:37
- Re: Re: SRS, wayne, 08:37
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Shevek, 08:33
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, mw-list-spf-discuss, 08:12
- Re: Performance issues, Hector Santos, 08:02
- Re: Re: SRS, mw-list-spf-discuss, 07:37
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, mw-list-spf-discuss, 07:30
- Re: softfail considered harmful, David Brodbeck, 07:23
- Re: softfail considered harmful, wayne, 06:28
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:23
- Re: A couple of thoughts, discussion-lists, 05:59
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Hector Santos, 05:47
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 04:28
- Re: SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Shevek, 02:25
- Re: softfail considered harmful, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:04
- softfail considered harmful, Dan Boresjo, 01:18
February 17, 2004
- Re: Performance issues, Theo Schlossnagle, 21:34
- Re: Performance issues, Meng Weng Wong, 20:11
- Re: Performance issues, Theo Schlossnagle, 20:06
- Re: Performance issues, Hector Santos, 19:14
- Re: Performance issues, Meng Weng Wong, 18:54
- Re: Performance issues, Hector Santos, 18:35
- SRS in .forward and reversing in /etc/aliases, Meng Weng Wong, 16:49
- Re: ANNOUNCE: Mail::SRS v0.21, Greg Wooledge, 16:37
- Re: Performance issues, Theo Schlossnagle, 15:53
- Re: SRS integration with qmail (was: A couple of thoughts), Mark, 13:27
- Re: Performance issues, Hector Santos, 13:03
- RE: A couple of thoughts, Dustin D. Trammell, 09:57
- Re: SRS, wayne, 08:41
- Re: SRS timestamp, Brian Candler, 08:39
- Re: SRS [was Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?], mw-list-spf-discuss, 08:26
- Re: SRS timestamp, Shevek, 08:22
- Re: SRS timestamp, Brian Candler, 08:21
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Brian Candler, 08:17
- Re: SRS timestamp, wayne, 08:14
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 08:06
- SRS timestamp, Brian Candler, 07:55
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, mw-list-spf-discuss, 07:46
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 06:53
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 06:42
- Re: A couple of thoughts, John Warren, 06:36
- Re: A couple of thoughts, John Warren, 06:30
- ANNOUNCE: Mail::SRS v0.21, Shevek, 04:28
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 03:33
February 16, 2004
- Re: Performance issues, Theo Schlossnagle, 18:01
- Re: SRS integration with qmail (was: A couple of thoughts), Greg Wooledge, 17:33
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Greg Connor, 15:26
- Re: RE: post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:19
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:03
- Re: Performance issues, Hector Santos, 10:30
- RE: SRS integration with qmail (was: A couple of thoughts), Seth Goodman, 10:13
- Re: Performance issues, Theo Schlossnagle, 09:38
- Performance issues, Hector Santos, 09:17
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 08:50
- RE: post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, "zámbori, zoltán", 08:04
- Re: What does SRS break [was: A couple of thoughts], Alain Knaff, 06:38
- Re: What does SRS break [was: A couple of thoughts], Shevek, 06:28
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 02/16/04, Wayne Schlitt, 06:23
- RE : SPF-based spam header decoder, Bourque Daniel, 06:12
- SPF-based spam header decoder, Wechsler, 05:01
- What does SRS break [was: A couple of thoughts], Brian Candler, 04:18
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 04:06
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 03:48
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Brian Candler, 03:25
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Dan Boresjo, 02:48
- SRS Please move this discussion to SPF-devel, James Couzens, 00:36
February 15, 2004
- Re: post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 18:04
- SRS integration with qmail (was: A couple of thoughts), Greg Wooledge, 16:56
- Re: post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 15:18
- Re: post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, Meng Weng Wong, 14:59
- post-SRS SMTP extension for anti-spam tools/methods, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:54
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 12:10
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Daniel Roethlisberger, 11:51
- Re: A couple of thoughts, wayne, 11:03
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 10:56
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Tim Wilde, 10:52
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 10:45
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 10:42
- ANNOUNCE: libsrs v0.1 - alpha, James Couzens, 10:20
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 08:25
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 03:27
February 14, 2004
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 21:07
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 19:23
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Philip Gladstone, 18:12
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:53
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Philip Gladstone, 15:41
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Mark, 13:14
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Wooledge, 07:57
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:40
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:37
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Shevek, 07:26
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:12
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Shevek, 07:08
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Shevek, 07:02
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Shevek, 06:55
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, wayne, 03:31
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Greg Connor, 00:34
February 13, 2004
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Meng Weng Wong, 21:19
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Greg Wooledge, 20:39
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, wayne, 19:08
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Justin Mason, 19:05
- Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 19:02
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, wayne, 18:45
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, mw-list-spf-discuss, 18:31
- Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Meng Weng Wong, 15:25
- the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP, Meng Weng Wong, 15:20
- new releases of libsrs and libspf, James Couzens, 13:23
- Re: A couple of thoughts, George Schlossnagle, 11:43
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Matt Sergeant, 11:37
- Re: tagging the return path from the get-go, Brian Candler, 10:43
- Re: tagging the return path from the get-go, Meng Weng Wong, 09:46
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 09:42
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 09:24
- Re: A couple of thoughts, wayne, 08:57
- Re: A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 08:53
- A couple of thoughts, Brian Candler, 08:33
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Tim Wilde, 07:45
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Shevek, 02:46
- Re: some comments from the RISKS lists, Shevek, 02:24
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Greg Connor, 00:57
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Greg Connor, 00:37
February 12, 2004
- some comments from the RISKS lists, Hendrik, 17:18
- RE: Re: eNom and SPF, Chris Cowherd, 15:14
- Re: Exim, Mail-SPF-Query & fetchmail, Jasmin Buchert, 13:24
- Re: Re: SPF in MTAs, Roger, 12:27
- Re: Exim, Mail-SPF-Query & fetchmail, Claus Herwig, 11:22
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Dustin D. Trammell, 10:03
- Exim, Mail-SPF-Query & fetchmail, Jasmin Buchert, 00:04
February 11, 2004
- ANNOUNCE: Mail::SRS v0.16, Shevek, 20:49
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Philip Gladstone, 20:48
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Theo Schlossnagle, 20:45
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Shevek, 20:35
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Meng Weng Wong, 19:41
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Theo Schlossnagle, 19:34
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 19:30
- Re: Re: eNom and SPF, Tim Wilde, 19:07
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Shevek, 19:06
- RE: Re: eNom and SPF, Marc Alaia, 19:00
- Re: Re: eNom and SPF, wayne, 18:27
- Re: Re: eNom and SPF, Mark Jeftovic, 18:14
- Re: eNom and SPF, Chris Cowherd, 18:07
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Theo Schlossnagle, 17:50
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Meng Weng Wong, 15:17
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, wayne, 15:12
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Meng Weng Wong, 14:25
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Shevek, 14:21
- Re: SRS and the 11 year period, Shevek, 13:03
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 12:29
- Re: the FAQ on (user) forwarding, list+spf-discuss, 12:19
- Re: SRS and the 11 year period, wayne, 12:19
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Seth Goodman, 12:18
- SRS and the 11 year period, Roy Badami, 12:16
- Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, wayne, 12:13
- SRS and the 11 year period, Meng Weng Wong, 12:12
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, wayne, 11:58
- Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Roy Badami, 11:36
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 11:29
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Seth Goodman, 11:19
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Shevek, 10:43
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Alain Knaff, 10:17
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, wayne, 10:01
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Meng Weng Wong, 10:00
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 09:56
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Shevek, 09:55
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 09:45
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 09:42
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 09:39
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:38
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, George Schlossnagle, 09:31
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 09:24
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:21
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Seth Goodman, 09:10
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 08:36
- RE: Updates on SRS crypto, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:14
- ANNOUNCE: ANSI C SRS library 'libsrs', James Couzens, 07:54
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, mw-list-spf-discuss, 07:51
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, Daniel Roethlisberger, 06:33
- Re: Updates on SRS crypto, wayne, 06:01
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, wayne, 05:41
- Updates on SRS crypto, Shevek, 05:09
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Carsten Kuckuk, 04:17
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Carsten Kuckuk, 04:02
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Gustav Foseid, 03:16
- Re: MD5 HMAC HASH - 64 or 128 bits?, Shevek, 03:14
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Shevek, 03:00
February 10, 2004
- Re: MD5 HMAC HASH - 64 or 128 bits?, Daniel Roethlisberger, 22:57
- MD5 HMAC HASH - 64 or 128 bits?, James Couzens, 20:42
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Justin Mason, 19:38
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Justin Mason, 19:36
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, wayne, 19:25
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, David Brodbeck, 19:11
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, James Couzens, 18:57
- Re: ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Daniel Roethlisberger, 18:54
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Daniel Roethlisberger, 18:27
- ANNOUNCE: SRS v0.15 documentation and code, Shevek, 18:15
- RE: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:23
- SPF Internet-draft, Larry Smith, 17:22
- hotmail.ro spam caught by SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 17:08
- RE: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Nick Fields, 16:55
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, John Capo, 16:54
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Richard Bollinger, 16:52
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Justin Mason, 15:34
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, George Schlossnagle, 15:31
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Meng Weng Wong, 15:21
- Re: Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, George Schlossnagle, 15:20
- March 4th BOF scheduled to discuss LMAP family, Meng Weng Wong, 15:13
- Re: SRS and the 64 char limit, Meng Weng Wong, 15:08
- Re: the FAQ on (user) forwarding, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:04
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Daniel Roethlisberger, 15:03
- SRS [was Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?], George Schlossnagle, 15:02
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 14:54
- Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:43
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Jameel Akari, 14:36
- Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Daniel Roethlisberger, 14:33
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:19
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:17
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, George Schlossnagle, 14:07
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, wayne, 14:07
- Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, wayne, 14:06
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Dan Boresjo, 14:05
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Matt Perry, 14:04
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Jameel Akari, 14:03
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, wayne, 14:02
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:52
- Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, wayne, 13:49
- will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:38
- Re: Pollution from the Qmail list, James Couzens, 13:24
- Re: the FAQ on (user) forwarding, Ernesto Baschny, 12:54
- Re: libspf - RELEASE v0.23 beta - 100% Sendmail Support!, James Couzens, 11:42
- the FAQ on (user) forwarding, mw-list-spf-discuss, 11:17
- Re: libspf - RELEASE v0.23 beta - 100% Sendmail Support!, John Hughes, 10:21
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, Sam Norris, 09:03
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Rob Kaper, 06:39
- Re: Pollution from the Qmail list, wayne, 05:05
- Re: Pollution from the Qmail list, Steven G. Willis, 04:59
- Re: Pollution from the Qmail list, Jose Celestino, 04:47
February 09, 2004
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, wayne, 18:12
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, spf-discuss, 17:42
- Re: <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Meng Weng Wong, 16:03
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Roger, 16:02
- Re: 550 vs. 571 as recommended spf-fail permanent failure code, Mark Shewmaker, 15:18
- RE: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Seth Goodman, 15:08
- Re: cookie management during forwarding, mw-list-spf-discuss, 15:04
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, Za'mbori, Zolta'n, 14:43
- header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Roy Badami, 12:58
- <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Roy Badami, 12:55
- Re: Version numbers and Unknown mecahanisms, Mark Lentczner, 10:28
- RE: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:27
- RE: What does SPF stand for?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:23
- RE: A modest proposal, Dustin D. Trammell, 10:21
- RE: What does SPF stand for?, Dustin D. Trammell, 10:16
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, wayne, 08:55
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, Sam Norris, 08:50
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, wayne, 07:57
- RE: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT rec ords?, Marc Alaia, 07:51
- Re: DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, Leonard Orb, 07:47
- DNS gurus: What is the max length of a TXT records?, wayne, 07:34
- Re: 550 vs. 571 as recommended spf-fail permanent failure code, Ernesto Baschny, 02:55
- Re: Random stats on how often SPF is checked, Ernesto Baschny, 02:37
- Re: 550 vs. 571 as recommended spf-fail permanent failure code, Greg Connor, 01:39
- RE: [OT]Frozen or slushy?, Greg Connor, 01:16
- Re: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Greg Connor, 00:29
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 02/09/04, Wayne Schlitt, 00:23
- Random stats on how often SPF is checked, Greg Connor, 00:05
- Berlind on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 00:01
February 08, 2004
- Re: Mailing lists?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:59
- Mailing lists?, Dennis Carr, 23:37
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Mark Shewmaker, 21:22
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, David Brodbeck, 20:47
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Mark Shewmaker, 20:33
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Mark Lentczner, 20:25
- 550 vs. 571 as recommended spf-fail permanent failure code, Mark Shewmaker, 19:09
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Karl Kraft, 16:13
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:32
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Karl Kraft, 15:17
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Dave Camp, 14:46
- Return-Path and responsible-sender, again., Mark Shewmaker, 14:03
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Mark Shewmaker, 11:30
- Re: SPF in MTAs, David Brodbeck, 10:57
- Re: Pollution from the Qmail list, Steven G. Willis, 10:28
- Pollution from the Qmail list, James Couzens, 10:10
- Re: libspf - RELEASE v0.23 beta - 100% Sendmail Support!, Joel McClung, 10:03
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:15
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:10
- libspf - RELEASE v0.23 beta - 100% Sendmail Support!, James Couzens, 09:07
- RELEASE v0.23 beta - 100% Sendmail Support!, James Couzens, 08:47
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, list+spf-discuss, 05:05
- A modest proposal, Mark Shewmaker, 01:34
- Re: specification 02.9.7 released, Mark Shewmaker, 01:12
February 07, 2004
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, wayne, 23:19
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:17
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, wayne, 23:16
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:15
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Matthew Barr, 23:11
- specification 02.9.7 released, Meng Weng Wong, 23:09
- Re: What does SPF stand for?, Eric S. Raymond, 21:35
- What does SPF stand for?, Meng Weng Wong, 21:30
- Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 20:32
- Re: SPF in MTAs, George Schlossnagle, 20:21
- Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 20:13
- Re: SPF in MTAs, George Schlossnagle, 19:55
- Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 19:28
- Re: SPF in MTAs, George Schlossnagle, 19:10
- Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 18:35
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Greg Wooledge, 18:29
- Re: SPF in MTAs, James Couzens, 15:48
- Re: cookie management during forwarding, Meng Weng Wong, 14:33
- RE: <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Seth Goodman, 13:35
- Re: SPF in MTAs, Gregory Neil Shapiro, 10:39
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, John Capo, 09:54
- cookie management during forwarding, mw-list-spf-discuss, 08:57
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, David A. Wheeler, 08:25
February 06, 2004
- Re: <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Greg Wooledge, 21:07
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, wayne, 21:01
- Re: <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Justin Mason, 19:59
- Re: <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Meng Weng Wong, 19:34
- <responsible-sender> header selection algorithm, Meng Weng Wong, 19:22
- Re: Re: pairNIC and SPF, Andy Lester, 16:37
- Re: Re: pairNIC and SPF, Henrik Edlund, 16:00
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Justin Mason, 15:50
- Re: pairNIC and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 15:50
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, David A. Wheeler, 15:22
- Re: header algorithm for responsible sender selection, David A. Wheeler, 13:49
- header algorithm for responsible sender selection, Meng Weng Wong, 11:51
- Re: mail.com now publishing, johnc-lists, 09:57
- Re: mail.com now publishing, Wechsler, 09:13
- Re: mail.com now publishing, Fridrik Skulason, 08:58
- Re: mail.com now publishing, Wechsler, 08:23
- RE: mail.com now publishing, R. Scott Perry, 08:08
- RE: mail.com now publishing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:29
- Re: mail.com now publishing, Wechsler, 07:20
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, Mark, 07:01
- mail.com now publishing, Meng Weng Wong, 06:54
- Re: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, Alain NAKACHE, 06:45
- Re: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, Ernesto Baschny, 05:16
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, Andrew Church, 03:57
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, Alain Knaff, 01:26
February 05, 2004
- Re: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, David Dyer-Bennet, 23:10
- Re: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, Eric S. Raymondvi /etc/pass, 21:52
- Re: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, David A. Wheeler, 21:02
- Re: Some SPF concerns/questions, Meng Weng Wong, 20:54
- Some SPF concerns/questions, David A. Wheeler, 19:51
- http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt, Meng Weng Wong, 19:06
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, David A. Wheeler, 18:40
- RE: Suspicious:Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Dustin D. Trammell, 17:28
- Re: Suspicious:Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:51
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Seth Goodman, 13:08
- [Announce] qmail-spf-pre2.patch, Christophe Saout, 12:03
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, list+spf-discuss, 10:56
- RE: Suspicious:Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), James Couzens, 10:34
- RE: Suspicious:Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Christophe Saout, 10:27
- RE: Suspicious:Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Dustin D. Trammell, 10:14
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 08:07
- RELEASE v0.22 beta - Important Qmail patch fixes, James Couzens, 07:19
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 07:14
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 07:05
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 07:02
- SPF Advocacy, Andrew Rose, 02:12
- Re: SPF and viruses, Greg Connor, 01:01
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Greg Connor, 00:51
February 04, 2004
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 20:02
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 19:59
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:58
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 19:50
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 19:44
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:12
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:11
- Re: SPF extension, Andy Bakun, 19:09
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 18:57
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 18:46
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 18:38
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:32
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 18:18
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 18:09
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 18:08
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 18:01
- Re: SPF extension, wayne, 18:00
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 17:40
- Re: NXDOMAIN, James Couzens, 17:36
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:28
- RE: SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 17:24
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 17:18
- BUG FIX - libspf v0.21, James Couzens, 17:11
- Re: SPF extension, Meng Weng Wong, 16:57
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Meng Weng Wong, 16:40
- Re: [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Greg Wooledge, 16:32
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Jason, 16:28
- SPF extension, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:22
- Help with SASL configuration?, Dennis Carr, 13:53
- SPF News: SPF growth, MIT spam conference, and code developments, wayne, 13:47
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 12:48
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, list+spf-discuss, 10:42
- Registrar "parked" domains, Dustin D. Trammell, 10:25
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Thomas Harold, 10:04
- Fedora RPMs available for Sendmail Milter, Meng Weng Wong, 08:54
- RELEASE - v0.21 beta - Qmail, Sendmail support, James Couzens, 06:44
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:09
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, Matthew Barr, 05:46
- Re: Milter showing 'command rejected', Mark, 02:17
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 01:57
- Milter showing 'command rejected', Graham Murray, 01:46
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Phil Howard, 01:38
February 03, 2004
- Re: SPF and mydoom, Meng Weng Wong, 22:13
- some trusted-forwarder.org stats, wayne, 21:24
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Roy Badami, 20:35
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Roy Badami, 20:26
- Re: Experimental phase, Meng Weng Wong, 19:46
- Re: Experimental phase, wayne, 19:45
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 19:43
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, wayne, 19:25
- Re: OT: RE: NXDOMAIN, David Brodbeck, 19:06
- Re: NXDOMAIN, David Brodbeck, 18:53
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Philip Gladstone, 18:35
- OT: RE: NXDOMAIN, Marc Alaia, 18:24
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Meng Weng Wong, 18:22
- RE: NXDOMAIN, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:20
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Kelson Vibber, 18:20
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Philip Gladstone, 18:04
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Philip Gladstone, 17:59
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Meng Weng Wong, 17:56
- NXDOMAIN, Marc Alaia, 17:51
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Mark Anderson, 17:45
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, Seth Goodman, 17:41
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 16:58
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Matt Perry, 16:56
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 16:55
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, George Mitchell, 16:47
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 15:35
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs: AOL, Meng Weng Wong, 15:35
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 15:34
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Seth Goodman, 15:26
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 15:10
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 14:27
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Roy Badami, 14:11
- Re: Help needed for SPF support in MTAs, Alain Knaff, 13:57
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:51
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 13:40
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Andy Bakun, 13:21
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:13
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Seth Goodman, 13:09
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:08
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:05
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:02
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 13:00
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 13:00
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:56
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Roy Badami, 12:52
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:49
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:45
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 12:11
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:49
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, George Mitchell, 11:02
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 10:39
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Mark, 10:03
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Andy Bakun, 10:00
- Re: Experimental phase, Christophe Saout, 09:59
- Re: Help needed for SPF support in MTAs, Matthew Barr, 09:54
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Andy Bakun, 09:50
- Experimental phase, Meng Weng Wong, 09:47
- Re: Help needed for SPF support in MTAs, David Brodbeck, 09:41
- Help needed for SPF support in MTAs, Meng Weng Wong, 09:41
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, johnc-lists, 09:30
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Christophe Saout, 09:30
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Mark, 09:27
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 09:25
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 09:22
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Jan Wildeboer, 09:21
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, johnc-lists, 09:20
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Christophe Saout, 09:18
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Mark Lentczner, 09:15
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 09:14
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Jan Wildeboer, 09:13
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Jan Wildeboer, 09:06
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, johnc-lists, 09:05
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 08:53
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, johnc-lists, 08:44
- Re: Some of the other big players.., wayne, 08:04
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 07:43
- Re: My first valid spf rejection, Alain Knaff, 07:43
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 07:36
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 07:32
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dan Boresjo, 07:31
- Re: Some of the other big players.., Matthew Barr, 07:27
- Re: My first valid spf rejection, Christophe Saout, 07:25
- Re: My first valid spf rejection, Alain Knaff, 07:11
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 07:01
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:00
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 06:56
- RE: Some of the other big players.., Marc Alaia, 06:49
- Some of the other big players.., Matthew Barr, 06:46
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 06:40
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 06:35
- RE: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Marc Alaia, 05:40
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 04:29
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:13
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Julian Mehnle, 04:01
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 00:58
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Brian Nelson, 00:49
February 02, 2004
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dan Boresjo, 21:28
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 21:08
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 21:02
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 20:59
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Andy Bakun, 20:47
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dan Boresjo, 20:34
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 20:11
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, David Brodbeck, 20:07
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, John Warren, 20:04
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 19:55
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 19:22
- Re: Leaving the SPF discuss list, Meng Weng Wong, 19:11
- Re: Leaving the SPF discuss list, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 19:04
- Leaving the SPF discuss list, lcarver, 18:57
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Philip Gladstone, 18:53
- Re: My first valid spf rejection, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:51
- RE: My first valid spf rejection, Marc Alaia, 18:46
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:33
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Mark Lentczner, 18:29
- My first valid spf rejection, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 18:00
- RE: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Marc Alaia, 17:47
- RE: Duh... now what, Julian Mehnle, 17:35
- RE: Duh... now what, Computerized Horizons, 17:08
- RE: Registrar supplied DNS support of TXT records?, Marc Alaia, 16:48
- RE: Duh... now what, Julian Mehnle, 16:47
- RE: Duh... now what, Julian Mehnle, 16:45
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Julian Mehnle, 16:40
- Re: Duh... now what, Computerized Horizons, 16:23
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 16:14
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 15:52
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 15:50
- Duh... now what, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:50
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 15:05
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Julian Mehnle, 14:43
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:31
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Justin Mason, 14:26
- Re: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, wayne, 14:05
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 14:02
- [Announce] qmail SPF patch (pre1), Christophe Saout, 13:59
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Julian Mehnle, 13:02
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Seth Goodman, 12:49
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 11:30
- RE: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Seth Goodman, 11:22
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Phil Howard, 11:04
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Phil Howard, 10:58
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Meng Weng Wong, 10:31
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Meng Weng Wong, 10:25
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Wechsler, 10:13
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Brian Nelson, 10:06
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Meng Weng Wong, 10:00
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Mark, 09:54
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 09:14
- Re: -helo=?, wayne, 09:13
- Re: Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:04
- -helo=?, Mark, 09:01
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Matt Perry, 08:56
- Re: New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 07:15
- Re: Stats script for Postfix policy daemon, Brian Nelson, 07:00
- RE: New macro proposed %{u}, Julian Mehnle, 06:46
- New macro proposed %{u}, Dan Boresjo, 05:48
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Dan Boresjo, 03:29
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 01:47
- Re: "extreme SPF" scenario for ISPs, Gustav Foseid, 01:29
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 02/02/04, Wayne Schlitt, 00:23
February 01, 2004
- RE: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 19:04
- Re: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Dan Boresjo, 16:55
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Julian Mehnle, 16:06
- Re: spam caught by spf, Meng Weng Wong, 15:04
- RE: Announcement: Mailbox Reputation Scheme, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:41
- RE: Is Return-Path as available as we think?, Arik Baratz, 13:53
- IP5 notes, Wechsler, 13:17
- RE: patenting SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:39
- RE: spam caught by spf, Marc Alaia, 10:36
- RE: patenting SPF, Seth Goodman, 10:24
- libspf - RELEASE - v0.20 pre-beta, James Couzens, 04:41