SPF Discuss (date)
May 31, 2004
- RE: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Ryan Malayter, 21:34
- Re: XML unification proposal, Weldon Whipple, 19:32
- RE: XML unification proposal, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:20
- RE: XML unification proposal, Michel Py, 18:36
- RE: SPFv1 is already extensible, Seth Goodman, 17:11
- RE: the problem of regime change, Seth Goodman, 16:39
- RE: What about reverse source path?, Seth Goodman, 16:24
- RE: the problem of regime change, SPF_0x1b, 16:23
- Re: SPFv1 is already extensible, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:54
- XML unification proposal, Tim Meadowcroft, 14:54
- Re: was XML Poll, Alain Knaff, 14:34
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Clifford Hammerschmidt, 14:11
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Meng Weng Wong, 14:09
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), administrator, 14:08
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Meng Weng Wong, 14:02
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Meng Weng Wong, 13:58
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Shevek, 13:53
- Re: SPFv1 is already extensible, Meng Weng Wong, 13:53
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Greg Connor, 13:48
- RE: SPFv1 is already extensible, Michael R. Brumm, 13:43
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:32
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), list+spf-discuss, 12:25
- RE: the problem of regime change, Michel Py, 12:06
- RE: the problem of regime change, Michel Py, 11:58
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Greg Connor, 11:54
- Re: the problem of regime change, Meng Weng Wong, 11:40
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), George Mitchell, 11:35
- Re: the problem of regime change, Lars B. Dybdahl, 11:33
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), JBritain, 11:30
- Sendmail releases open source milter for testing Yahoo! DomainKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 11:13
- the problem of regime change, Meng Weng Wong, 11:12
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Greg Connor, 11:06
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), frank, 09:19
- Re: THIS POLL IS USELESS, George Mitchell, 09:09
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Matthew Mastracci, 08:36
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Meng Weng Wong, 08:00
- RE: What about reverse source path?, Seth Goodman, 07:51
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Chris Drake, 07:22
- SPFv1 is already extensible, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:06
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Xavier Beaudouin, 06:05
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Lars B. Dybdahl, 03:46
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Mark, 03:29
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Koen Martens, 03:13
- Re: THIS POLL IS USELESS, Andrew Church, 02:21
- With regard to Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights) (was: THIS POLL IS USELESS), Koen Martens, 02:20
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Greg Connor, 02:15
- Answers to new, more detailed poll (Was: Re: THIS POLL IS USELESS), Alain Knaff, 02:11
- THIS POLL IS USELESS, Greg Connor, 01:47
- Re: was XML Poll, Andy Bakun, 00:50
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Andy Bakun, 00:40
- Re: was XML Poll, Koen Martens, 00:36
- Other options (was: Re: was XML Poll), Paul Iadonisi, 00:32
- Re: was XML Poll, Lars B. Dybdahl, 00:27
- Re: was XML Poll, Andy Bakun, 00:24
- Re: In defence of XML, wayne, 00:23
- Re: was XML Poll, Lars B. Dybdahl, 00:01
May 30, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 05/31/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Michael R. Brumm, 23:02
- Re: In defence of XML, Roger Moser, 22:54
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Daniel Quinlan, 22:52
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Rik van Riel, 21:38
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Rik van Riel, 21:31
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Alan Madill, 21:03
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Weldon Whipple, 20:43
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Stuart D. Gathman, 20:17
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:44
- I need secondary nameservers for trusted-forwarder.org, wayne, 17:18
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Andrew Church, 17:14
- Is extensibility and issue? - was XML Poll, Neil Brown, 16:44
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:41
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:39
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Neil Brown, 16:29
- Re: was XML Poll, Terence Way, 16:26
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Jim Hill, 16:23
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:20
- Re: SV: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Theo Schlossnagle, 15:54
- Re: was XML Poll, Theo Van Dinter, 15:50
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Chris Bartram, 15:37
- Re: was XML Poll, Frank Ellermann, 15:37
- Re: was XML Poll, Alan Hodgson, 15:32
- Re: was XML Poll, Lars B. Dybdahl, 15:03
- RE: was XML Poll, Ian Peter, 14:47
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Ryan Malayter, 14:45
- Re: was XML Poll, dave wanta, 14:36
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Seth Goodman, 14:33
- SV: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Lars Dybdahl, 14:30
- XML: Pros and Cons, was Re: XML Poll, George Mitchell, 14:22
- Re: In defence of XML, Paul Iadonisi, 14:22
- Re: Re: SPF records at AltaVista, Koen Martens, 14:09
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Marcie Alana Lovell, 14:08
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Tim Meadowcroft, 14:05
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Andy Bakun, 14:04
- RE: What about reverse source path?, Seth Goodman, 14:02
- Re: In defence of XML, Tim Meadowcroft, 13:51
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Scott Taylor, 13:46
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Mark C. Brown, 13:22
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Michael R. Brumm, 13:07
- Re: SPF records at AltaVista, Frank Ellermann, 13:04
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Richard Pitt, 13:04
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 13:01
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), dave wanta, 12:55
- SPF Usage vs. CID Usage, Was Re: XML Poll, George Mitchell, 12:19
- Regarding XML, Aredridel, 12:07
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Michel Py, 11:57
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), wayne, 11:52
- Re: Re: SPF records at AltaVista, spf, 11:50
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), spf, 11:42
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Paul Iadonisi, 11:42
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Larry Smith, 11:38
- Re: SPF records at AltaVista, Frank Ellermann, 11:33
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Alain Knaff, 11:15
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Karsten Elfenbein, 11:01
- Re: Extensibility, and error handling. Could SPF lose to XML over it?, wayne, 10:55
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), wayne, 10:46
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Ken, 10:29
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), spf, 10:28
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Scott Taylor, 10:28
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Lloyd Zusman, 10:24
- Re: XML Poll, Frank Ellermann, 10:21
- XML Poll (Please respond only once), Roger Moser, 10:19
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Andrew Brampton, 10:18
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), David, 10:12
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Geoffrey T. Dairiki, 10:09
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Steven G. Willis, 10:08
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Terence Way, 10:08
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Roman Festchook, 10:06
- XML Poll (Please respond only once), George Mitchell, 10:02
- Extensibility, and error handling. Could SPF lose to XML over it?, Greg Connor, 09:44
- Mark Lentcner is everywhere, wayne, 09:36
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Greg Connor, 09:27
- Re: Re[2]: what license do you want to see?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:26
May 29, 2004
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Michel Py, 18:36
- Re: Re[2]: what license do you want to see?, Paul Iadonisi, 16:25
- Re[2]: what license do you want to see?, Chris Drake, 16:15
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Paul Iadonisi, 15:43
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:44
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:11
- RE: what license do you want to see?, william(at)elan.net, 11:40
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Richard Parker, 11:33
- XML enables nested error handling, Roger Moser, 11:27
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Richard Parker, 11:20
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, Alain Knaff, 11:13
- AOL's SPF webpage, Jasper Wallace, 10:25
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:15
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:03
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:39
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:34
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:26
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Paul Iadonisi, 07:54
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:36
- Re: what license do you want to see?, Jasper Wallace, 05:19
- Re: what license do you want to see?, wayne, 04:59
- RE: XML enables nested error handling, Michael R. Brumm, 04:44
- RE: XML enables nested error handling, Michael R. Brumm, 04:44
- Re: XML enables nested error handling, Tim Meadowcroft, 02:07
- Re: XML enables nested error handling, Greg Connor, 01:18
- Re: SPF records at AltaVista, Greg Connor, 01:01
May 28, 2004
- RE: what license do you want to see?, SPF_0x1b, 23:40
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Daniel Quinlan, 23:29
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Paul Iadonisi, 20:54
- Patent concerns [Was: What about reverse source path?], Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:53
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Andy Bakun, 20:36
- Re: SV: Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, Andy Bakun, 20:31
- RE: what license do you want to see?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:12
- Re: SV: RCPT TO: rejecting, Guillaume Filion, 19:48
- what license do you want to see?, Meng Weng Wong, 19:06
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Paul Iadonisi, 18:36
- Re: the philosophy of CBV, David Nicol, 16:19
- packing all SPF1 information into a sequence of 32-bit words, or at least A records and CNAMES, David Nicol, 16:10
- Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Michael R. Brumm, 15:36
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:33
- RE: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:12
- RE: What about reverse source path?, Seth Goodman, 13:45
- Re: SV: Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, James Couzens, 13:39
- Re: What about reverse source path?, David Brodbeck, 13:18
- Re: XML enables nested error handling, Andy Bakun, 12:46
- Re: XML enables nested error handling, Aredridel, 11:59
- XML enables nested error handling, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:55
- Re: SV: Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, Andy Bakun, 11:10
- Re: SPF records at AltaVista, Meng Weng Wong, 11:02
- SPF records at AltaVista, Nate Leon, 11:00
- Re: What about reverse source path?, wayne, 10:56
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Paul Iadonisi, 10:49
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:52
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:46
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Paul Iadonisi, 09:18
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:39
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Jason Gurtz, 08:09
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:06
- Re: What about reverse source path?, wayne, 07:28
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:18
- Re: What about reverse source path?, wayne, 07:07
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Daniel Taylor, 05:26
- SV: Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, Lars Dybdahl, 01:31
May 27, 2004
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Paul Iadonisi, 23:28
- Re: strategic explanation of SPF BOF, Meng Weng Wong, 22:12
- OT - Buffalo Spammer Sentanced to Prison term, James Couzens, 18:23
- Re: What about reverse source path?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 16:25
- What about reverse source path?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:17
- Re: OT: spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:11
- Inbox Event Reminder: you are invited to the SPF BOF June 3rd at Marriott San Jose 6:30-8:00pm, Meng Weng Wong, 14:06
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, spf, 12:52
- RE: the philosophy of CBV, Ryan Malayter, 12:30
- Re: Re[2]: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, list+spf-discuss, 12:27
- Re: Re[2]: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, lst_hoe01, 12:14
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Daniel Quinlan, 12:08
- Re: Re[2]: domainkeys, George Mitchell, 11:17
- Re[2]: domainkeys, Chris Drake, 11:09
- Re: OT: spammers, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:07
- Re[2]: OT: spammers, Chris Bartram, 11:03
- RE: domainkeys, George Mitchell, 10:36
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, Guillaume Filion, 10:30
- RE: domainkeys, Seth Goodman, 10:24
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Ryan Malayter, 10:11
- RE: domainkeys, Ryan Malayter, 09:53
- Re[2]: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Chris Drake, 08:57
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, Jameel Akari, 08:48
- RE: Re[2]: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Michel Py, 08:35
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, administrator, 08:29
- Re: OT: spammers, gmc, 08:05
- Re: OT: spammers, spf, 08:02
- Re: OT: spammers, wayne, 07:58
- Re: OT: spammers, Christian Joergensen, 07:37
- Re: OT: spammers, Larry Smith, 07:28
- Re: OT: spammers, Andy Lester, 07:19
- Re: OT: spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:59
- Re: OT: spammers, Larry Smith, 06:53
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, lst_hoe01, 06:25
- Re: OT: spammers, Alain Knaff, 06:21
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, David Brodbeck, 06:14
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, David Brodbeck, 06:04
- Re: OT: spammers, ernst, 05:11
- OT: spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:02
- domainkeys, Chris Drake, 04:22
- Any hint about forwards ?, Xavier Beaudouin, 04:09
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Carl Hutzler, 03:33
- Re: the philosophy of CBV, Chris Drake, 03:27
- Re[2]: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Chris Drake, 03:13
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, lst_hoe01, 03:01
- Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, Frank Ellermann, 03:01
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Mark, 01:50
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Nigel Metheringham, 01:49
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, spf, 01:40
May 26, 2004
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Michel Py, 23:26
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Graham Murray, 22:58
- the philosophy of CBV, Meng Weng Wong, 21:34
- RE: Using SPF w/o XML, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:02
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 19:43
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Meng Weng Wong, 19:35
- RE: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Michel Py, 19:30
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 19:11
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 18:58
- Re: RFC 2822 groveling after flag day, Daniel Quinlan, 18:58
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Roy Snell, 18:50
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Lou Katz, 18:48
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, wayne, 18:44
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 18:40
- Re: some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, Daniel Quinlan, 18:40
- Postfix and SPF question, Eric Girard, 18:36
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, wayne, 18:35
- RE: RFC 2822 groveling after flag day, Seth Goodman, 18:35
- Re: RFC 2822 groveling after flag day, Daniel Quinlan, 18:31
- some stats on SPF and C-ID publishing, wayne, 18:17
- RFC 2822 groveling after flag day, Daniel Quinlan, 18:04
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 17:56
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 17:32
- Re: Using SPF w/o XML, Meng Weng Wong, 16:50
- RE: Using SPF w/o XML, Ryan Malayter, 16:35
- Re: Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Chris Drake, 16:28
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, David Nicol, 16:13
- Re: [BULK] - RE: Using SPF w/o XML, Mark Joseph, 16:12
- Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Chris Drake, 16:09
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, David Nicol, 16:04
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Jesse Gordon, 16:01
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Mark Shewmaker, 15:56
- Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting, Chris Drake, 15:31
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 15:23
- RE: Using SPF w/o XML, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:20
- RE: Using SPF w/o XML, George Mitchell, 15:18
- RE: Using SPF w/o XML, Ryan Malayter, 15:06
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Mark, 14:32
- Re[2]: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU RE, Chris Bartram, 13:37
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 13:22
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Michel Py, 13:17
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 13:00
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 12:55
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, wayne, 12:51
- Using SPF w/o XML, Phil Howard, 12:39
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 12:36
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Alain Knaff, 12:32
- Article in Security UPDATE newletter, Roy Snell, 12:24
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, James Couzens, 12:14
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, David Brodbeck, 12:10
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 12:00
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 11:31
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Greg Connor, 10:47
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Brad Glore, 10:33
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Brad Glore, 10:16
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, George Mitchell, 10:07
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, David Brodbeck, 10:02
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, George Mitchell, 09:56
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Andy Bakun, 09:52
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, David Brodbeck, 09:51
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, George Mitchell, 09:34
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline, David Brodbeck, 09:27
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 09:02
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Michel Py, 08:53
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, DJ Coster, 08:16
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Brad Glore, 08:06
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, DJ Coster, 07:36
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Daniel Taylor, 06:47
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, Theo Schlossnagle, 06:30
- RE: RCPT TO: rejecting, Seth Goodman, 06:05
- case test, Ed White, 05:44
- RE: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Seth Goodman, 05:37
May 25, 2004
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Graham Murray, 22:11
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:52
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Paul Iadonisi, 20:29
- RE: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Michel Py, 19:05
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Meng Weng Wong, 18:45
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, SPF_0x1b, 18:43
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, david nicol, 18:25
- Re[2]: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Chris Drake, 18:25
- Re: What does RFROM give us that Sender: doesn't?, david nicol, 18:04
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, david nicol, 17:55
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Justin Mason, 17:19
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Paul Iadonisi, 16:58
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, Justin Mason, 16:29
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU REQU IRED, George Mitchell, 14:46
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED, SPF_0x1b, 14:36
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GNU REQU IRED, SPF_0x1b, 14:19
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Daniel Taylor, 12:32
- Caller ID, Sender Policy Framework to be united, Bill Landry, 12:09
- RE: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Seth Goodman, 11:56
- Re: SPF test request, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 11:35
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Daniel Taylor, 09:45
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Chuck Mead, 09:25
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:15
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Meng Weng Wong, 09:10
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:10
- Re: SPF Status unknown error on lookup, Jeff Mandel, 09:09
- Re: SPF Status unknown error on lookup, Jeff Mandel, 08:57
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Daniel Taylor, 08:05
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Paul Howarth, 07:46
- Re: A note on SPF effectiveness, Chris Drake, 07:41
- A note on SPF effectiveness, Daniel Taylor, 06:14
- Re: SPF Status unknown error on lookup, Mark, 03:10
- SV: RCPT TO: rejecting, Lars Dybdahl, 01:53
- RCPT TO: rejecting, Chris Drake, 01:41
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, lst_hoe01, 01:00
- Re: occasional timeout with SPF, lst_hoe01, 00:53
May 24, 2004
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Jeff Taylor, 20:36
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Meng Weng Wong, 19:54
- Do we have a flag day?, Roy Badami, 17:12
- The New SPF: overall outline, Roy Badami, 16:47
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Roy Badami, 16:30
- SPF Status unknown error on lookup, Jeff Mandel, 16:18
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Greg Connor, 15:45
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Roy Badami, 15:37
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Justin Mason, 15:16
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Jeff Taylor, 15:15
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Roy Badami, 14:56
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:27
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Roy Badami, 14:25
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Meng Weng Wong, 13:49
- Re: Putting the PRA into the Received headers, Roy Badami, 13:08
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Roy Badami, 13:03
- Re: Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Jonathan Gardner, 12:59
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Paul Iadonisi, 12:58
- Re: Putting the PRA into the Received headers, Meng Weng Wong, 12:53
- Putting the PRA into the Received headers, Roy Badami, 12:52
- Putting the PRA into the Received headers, Meng Weng Wong, 10:58
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 09:30
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 05/24/04, Wayne Schlitt, 07:28
- Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), administrator, 06:54
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Seth Goodman, 06:05
- SV: Re[2]: HELO vs. envelope checks, Lars Dybdahl, 05:27
- Re[2]: HELO vs. envelope checks, Chris Drake, 05:09
- SV: HELO vs. envelope checks, Lars Dybdahl, 04:56
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Seth Goodman, 04:44
- What does RFROM give us that forwarder whitelisting doesn't?, Alain Knaff, 01:28
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, lst_hoe01, 01:01
May 23, 2004
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Mark, 23:54
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Greg Connor, 22:42
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Seth Goodman, 20:45
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Seth Goodman, 20:07
- slideshow on convergence, Meng Weng Wong, 17:50
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Justin Mason, 05:59
May 22, 2004
- Ideas for semantic (feature) extensibility, Greg Connor, 15:30
- RE: Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorm ing RFROM variants), SPF_0x1b, 15:23
- SV: Wayne's thoughts from the IETF Meeting, Lars Dybdahl, 13:43
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Chuck Mead, 13:22
- Re: Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), Tim Meadowcroft, 11:39
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Jeff Taylor, 11:07
- RE: Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), Seth Goodman, 10:40
- Re: Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), Theo Schlossnagle, 09:11
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Guillaume Filion, 06:33
- Re: Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), Carl Hutzler, 05:12
- Tarpitting and SpamCannibal (was Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants), Tim Meadowcroft, 05:06
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:28
May 21, 2004
- Logo aka branding aka identity issue, Chris Drake, 23:08
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Mark, 22:05
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Meng Weng Wong, 20:09
- RE: Wayne's thoughts from the IETF Meeting, Seth Goodman, 18:52
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Chuck Mead, 18:26
- Re: occasional timeout with SPF, Chuck Mead, 18:23
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Greg Connor, 17:14
- Re: Wayne's thoughts from the IETF Meeting, Meng Weng Wong, 17:10
- RE: Brainstorming RFROM variants, Seth Goodman, 16:54
- Re: Brainstorming RFROM variants, david nicol, 15:38
- RE: Brainstorming RFROM variants, Michael R. Brumm, 15:11
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, wayne, 14:11
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, wayne, 14:03
- Wayne's thoughts from the IETF Meeting, wayne, 13:47
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Tim Meadowcroft, 13:30
- RFROM and "New SPF" talk, Jeremy T. Bouse, 13:05
- Brainstorming RFROM variants, Mark Shewmaker, 12:47
- RFCwiki announcement, also discussion of rolling RAPNAP into SPF, david nicol, 11:17
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Jeff Taylor, 10:55
- Re: smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Meng Weng Wong, 10:43
- smtpd_recipiant/client_restrictions, Jeff Taylor, 10:37
- Re: Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, david nicol, 10:02
- Re: Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 07:51
- Re: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Daniel Taylor, 06:15
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Daniel Taylor, 04:57
- PTR Name SPF checking, william(at)elan.net, 03:21
- Re: occasional timeout with SPF, lst_hoe01, 02:01
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, william(at)elan.net, 01:45
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline, Stefan Engelbert, 00:44
- The New SPF: overall outline, Roger Moser, 00:08
May 20, 2004
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, william(at)elan.net, 21:39
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:51
- RE: The New SPF: overall outline, Michael R. Brumm, 17:29
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline (xml), Guillaume Filion, 17:05
- RE: What is SES? (Was Re: SPF does not break forwarding), Seth Goodman, 16:31
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline (xml), Andy Bakun, 16:14
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline (xml), Andy Bakun, 16:05
- The New SPF: overall outline, Roger Moser, 16:02
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, James Couzens, 15:55
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, James Couzens, 15:50
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Meng Weng Wong, 15:50
- The New SPF: overall outline, Roger Moser, 15:50
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, James Couzens, 15:48
- Re: SV: The New SPF: overall outline, Paul Iadonisi, 15:42
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Jasper Wallace, 15:30
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Paul Iadonisi, 15:27
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Guillaume Filion, 15:20
- SV: The New SPF: overall outline, Lars Dybdahl, 15:20
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, James Couzens, 15:13
- SV: The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Lars Dybdahl, 14:28
- Re: update from MARID meeting, Steven G. Willis, 14:19
- Re: update from MARID meeting, Meng Weng Wong, 14:08
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Meng Weng Wong, 14:03
- Re: update from MARID meeting, Mark, 13:32
- RE: Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Michael R. Brumm, 13:25
- Re: Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Eric S. Raymond, 13:23
- SV: update from MARID meeting, Lars Dybdahl, 13:22
- Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Mark, 13:20
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Paul Iadonisi, 13:00
- Re: Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Eric S. Raymond, 12:56
- RE: new RRtype may not be that hard, Michael R. Brumm, 12:50
- Re: new RRtype may not be that hard, Meng Weng Wong, 12:37
- Fw: suggested new RRtype experiment, Mark, 12:21
- Re: The New SPF: overall outline, Meng Weng Wong, 12:06
- The New SPF: overall outline, Meng Weng Wong, 12:04
- The New SPF: introducing RFROM, Meng Weng Wong, 11:27
- new RRtype may not be that hard, Meng Weng Wong, 10:53
- Re: update from MARID meeting, Guillaume Filion, 10:43
- update from MARID meeting, Meng Weng Wong, 10:21
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Theo Schlossnagle, 09:58
- Re: What is SES? (Was Re: SPF does not break forwarding), Weldon Whipple, 09:39
- Re: What is SES? (Was Re: SPF does not break forwarding), Dustin D. Trammell, 09:38
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Dustin D. Trammell, 09:38
- Re: What is SES? (Was Re: SPF does not break forwarding), Dustin D. Trammell, 09:26
- What is SES? (Was Re: SPF does not break forwarding), Weldon Whipple, 09:17
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Nigel Metheringham, 08:55
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Seth Goodman, 08:43
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Ryan Malayter, 08:33
- Re: softfail versus neutral?, Lloyd Zusman, 08:16
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, administrator, 08:08
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Jeremy Pullicino, 08:07
- SPF does not break forwarding, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:23
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Ryan Malayter, 07:22
- Re: softfail versus neutral?, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:59
- softfail versus neutral?, Lloyd Zusman, 05:44
- Re: SV: let's get rid of SRS, Tony Finch, 03:35
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Tony Finch, 03:29
- SV: let's get rid of SRS, Lars Dybdahl, 03:25
- SV: let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 02:36
- SV: let's get rid of SRS, Lars Dybdahl, 01:53
May 19, 2004
- let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 23:14
- let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 23:14
- let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 23:14
- let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 23:14
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Ryan Malayter, 22:12
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Neil Brown, 20:48
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Greg Wooledge, 17:31
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:20
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Seth Goodman, 15:08
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Mark, 15:04
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 14:38
- let's get rid of SRS, Roger Moser, 14:24
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Seth Goodman, 13:42
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Mark, 13:00
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Seth Goodman, 12:47
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:21
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Daniel Taylor, 11:49
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, George Mitchell, 11:32
- RE: let's get rid of SRS, Shaun Bryant, 11:23
- occasional timeout with SPF, Chuck Mead, 09:56
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 09:36
- SV: let's get rid of SRS, Lars Dybdahl, 09:35
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Christopher Chan, 09:34
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, Shaun T. Erickson, 09:21
- Re: let's get rid of SRS, spf, 09:18
- let's get rid of SRS, Meng Weng Wong, 09:11
May 17, 2004
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Greg Connor, 22:22
- Re: regarding hashcash / penny black and vanquish, Meng Weng Wong, 21:20
- regarding hashcash / penny black, Meng Weng Wong, 21:17
- RE: HELO vs. envelope checks, Seth Goodman, 12:46
- evite.com publishing SPF records, Dustin D. Trammell, 10:48
- Re: Why Spam Is A Hard Problem, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:13
- Why Spam Is A Hard Problem, Meng Weng Wong, 09:49
- SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Roger Moser, 08:54
- Re: SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Tony Finch, 08:29
- Re: SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Meng Weng Wong, 08:17
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Paul Howarth, 04:51
- Re: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Daniel Taylor, 04:50
- HELO vs. envelope checks, Roger Moser, 04:30
- Re: SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Tony Finch, 03:44
May 16, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 05/17/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:26
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Greg Connor, 23:09
- Re: SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Dave Crocker, 15:25
- SPF internet-draft v 01 released to RFC Editor, Meng Weng Wong, 15:05
- Re: SV: Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, list+spf-discuss, 00:54
May 15, 2004
- Re: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Jeremy T. Bouse, 09:20
- Re: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Adam Hunt, 07:11
- Re: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Adam Hunt, 06:44
- Re: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, marc, 05:17
- RE: SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Michael R. Brumm, 05:17
- SPF and "techie" broadband ISPs, Adam Hunt, 05:03
May 14, 2004
- RELEASE libspf v0.25 beta, James Couzens, 23:37
- RELEASE libspf v0.25 beta, James Couzens, 10:39
- ANNOUNCE: rmxf for postfix new version 20040513, Różański Sergiusz, 07:43
- Re: virtual domains and TXT records; TXT labeling; TLS versus SPF, Paul Howarth, 01:57
- virtual domains and TXT records; TXT labeling; TLS versus SPF, spf-stuff, 01:30
May 13, 2004
- Re: a change in the implementation?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:38
- Re: a change in the implementation?, Chuck Mead, 12:36
- Re: a change in the implementation?, Daniel Taylor, 12:28
- a change in the implementation?, Chuck Mead, 11:58
- Re: SPF implementation error, Mark, 10:18
- Re: SPF implementation error, Mark, 10:03
- Re: SPF implementation error, Roy Badami, 09:44
- Re: SPF implementation error, Roy Badami, 09:41
- Re: SPF implementation error, Mark, 09:22
- Re: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Paul Howarth, 00:57
- Re: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 00:46
- Re: SPF implementation error, Różański Sergiusz, 00:15
May 12, 2004
- SPF implementation error, Roy Badami, 15:36
- SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 14:41
- RE: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Michael R. Brumm, 14:12
- SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 12:33
- RE: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Michael R. Brumm, 12:02
- Re: fallback SPF records, Paul Howarth, 07:23
- fallback SPF records, Jeremy Jackson, 07:01
- SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 06:41
- Re: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:15
May 11, 2004
- SV: SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 13:27
- Re: Re: SPF "exists" and DVP, Meng Weng Wong, 13:22
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, David Brodbeck, 13:20
- SV: Re: SPF and complexity, Lars Dybdahl, 13:16
- Re: Head count for MARID interim meeting, Meng Weng Wong, 13:00
- Re: SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, wayne, 12:42
- Re: Re: SPF and complexity, Tony Finch, 12:31
- Re: Re: SPF and complexity, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:10
- SV: SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 10:06
- Re: SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Paul Howarth, 09:28
- SV: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 08:54
- Re: SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, wayne, 07:03
- Re: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, wayne, 06:58
- Interim MARID Working Group Meeting May 19-20 Santa Clara, CA, Meng Weng Wong, 03:18
- SV: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Lars Dybdahl, 03:03
- Re: Re: SPF and complexity, Tony Finch, 02:46
- Re: SV: Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Tony Finch, 02:42
- SPF bug: IPv6 and minimum implementation limits, Tony Finch, 02:34
- Re: Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:31
- Re: SV: Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Daniel Quinlan, 02:30
- Re: SPF and complexity, Tony Finch, 02:02
- Recursion limit of 20 include/redirects total, Meng Weng Wong, 01:42
- SV: SPF competitor: DVP, Lars Dybdahl, 01:15
- SV: Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Lars Dybdahl, 01:04
- Re: Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 00:44
May 10, 2004
- SPF competitor: DVP, Roger Moser, 23:34
- Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Daniel Quinlan, 22:43
- Re: "valid since" addition to SPF?, Meng Weng Wong, 22:08
- SPF Turing completeness, Meng Weng Wong, 21:18
- Re: SPF competitor: DVP, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:16
- Re: SPF competitor: DVP, Tony Finch, 13:56
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:51
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, James Couzens, 12:55
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, Seth Goodman, 12:22
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:11
- Re: SPF competitor: DVP, Meng Weng Wong, 12:01
- SRS - postfix: rewrite envelope-sender, Różański Sergiusz, 05:16
- RE: SPF competitor: DVP, Jeremy Pullicino, 04:54
May 08, 2004
- SV: Trailing dot in domain-name, Roger Moser, 23:47
- Re: SV: Trailing dot in domain-name, spf, 17:39
- Re: SV: Trailing dot in domain-name, DJ Coster, 15:55
- SV: Trailing dot in domain-name, Lars Dybdahl, 03:15
- SV: SPF competitor: DVP, Lars Dybdahl, 03:14
- Trailing dot in domain-name, Roger Moser, 00:34
May 06, 2004
- RE: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Seth Goodman, 22:31
- Re: Postfix smtpd-policy.pl always says 'DUNNO' / Received-SPF headers?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 12:29
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Dustin D. Trammell, 12:19
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Tony Finch, 11:27
- Re: Nice eWeek article on SPF and the IETF process, Paul Iadonisi, 11:22
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Dustin D. Trammell, 11:13
- RE: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Paul Iadonisi, 10:48
- Postfix smtpd-policy.pl always says 'DUNNO' / Received-SPF headers?, Michael Meier, 10:46
- RE: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Dustin D. Trammell, 09:06
- Re: Nice eWeek article on SPF and the IETF process, Dustin D. Trammell, 08:56
- Re: HELO vs. envelope checks, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:28
- HELO vs. envelope checks, Tony Finch, 07:29
- Re: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 07:24
- RE: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:22
- RE: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:15
- Re: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 07:10
- Re: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Tony Finch, 06:29
- Re: S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Carl Hutzler, 06:25
- Re: solving the demon problem: use the zonecut, Meng Weng Wong, 06:24
- S/MIME Gateway Profile / Yahoo DomainKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 05:49
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Tony Finch, 03:10
May 05, 2004
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Ryan Malayter, 23:18
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Michael R. Brumm, 22:11
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Seth Goodman, 19:55
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Michael R. Brumm, 18:58
- Please use the SRS-DISCUSS for SRS discussion!, James Couzens, 18:18
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Seth Goodman, 18:13
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Michael R. Brumm, 17:23
- Re: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Lloyd Zusman, 16:38
- RE: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Ryan Malayter, 16:26
- Re: BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Tony Finch, 15:58
- Re: Nice eWeek article on SPF and the IETF process, James Couzens, 14:27
- BASE64 encoding of SRS hash may not work with some mail servers, Roger Moser, 14:23