SPF Discuss (date)
June 30, 2004
- RE: wizard.html problems (was: What does PASS really mean?), spf, 20:16
- Re: register.com and SPF advocacy, Thomas Harold, 19:55
- Re: milter-spf 1.41: Failed to set timeout value!, Mark, 19:04
- register.com and SPF advocacy, bulk72804, 18:14
- wizard.html problems (was: What does PASS really mean?), Frank Ellermann, 16:54
- RE: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Gary Levell, 16:09
- RE: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Gary Levell, 15:25
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, spf, 14:57
- Re: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Roger Moser, 13:35
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, spf, 12:03
- spf-milter error state, David Lawless, 12:02
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:46
- RE: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Gary Levell, 09:04
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, spf, 08:39
- Re: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Meng Weng Wong, 08:24
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Meng Weng Wong, 08:22
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, spf, 07:43
- RE: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Gary Levell, 07:38
- Sendmail v8.13.0+libSPF 1.0 HOWTO, James Couzens, 07:11
- Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, Frank Ellermann, 06:38
- Re: Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, David Beveridge, 06:05
- Re: Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, David Beveridge, 05:29
- Re: Win NT, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 05:07
- Re: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Roger Moser, 04:43
- Re[2]: What does PASS really mean?, Chris Drake, 02:59
- Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, Frank Ellermann, 02:40
- Re: Security leak in spf-* lists?, Karl Prince, 02:30
- Re: Suggestions and Ideas, Paul Howarth, 02:29
- Re: Win NT, Karl Prince, 02:16
- Re: Suggestions and Ideas, James Couzens, 02:15
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Howarth, 01:48
- Re: Security leak in spf-* lists?, Paul Howarth, 01:30
- Security leak in spf-* lists?, Chris Haynes, 01:10
June 29, 2004
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:34
- Re: Last Tweak for the Aggressive Spam Hater, Greg Connor, 23:27
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, spf, 21:52
- Re: Last Tweak for the Aggressive Spam Hater, David Lawless, 21:45
- Re: Inactive domains, Lou Katz, 18:36
- Re: Win NT, Greg Wooledge, 18:08
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Jonathan Gardner, 17:25
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Jonathan Gardner, 17:20
- Re: Last Tweak for the Aggressive Spam Hater, Meng Weng Wong, 17:20
- Re: Windows program to check spf records, administrator, 16:25
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Shevek, 15:43
- Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Gary Levell, 14:46
- Last Tweak for the Aggressive Spam Hater, David Lawless, 14:45
- RE: What does PASS really mean?, Gary Levell, 13:10
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Meng Weng Wong, 11:58
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Chris Haynes, 11:35
- Re: Win NT, Jason Gurtz, 11:34
- Re: What does PASS really mean?, Guillaume Filion, 11:29
- Win NT, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 11:17
- What does PASS really mean?, Jonathan Gardner, 10:51
- Re: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, David Brodbeck, 10:36
- Re: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Jonathan Gardner, 10:15
- RE: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 08:18
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Howarth, 07:49
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, wayne, 07:44
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Meng Weng Wong, 07:41
- Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, David Beveridge, 07:32
- Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, John Keown, 07:02
- Re: Digest 1.357 for spf-discuss, administrator, 06:48
- My Tweaks, David Lawless, 06:09
- Re: Re[2]: Why SOFTFAIL, David Brodbeck, 05:46
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, David Brodbeck, 05:42
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Bissex, 05:31
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Howarth, 05:21
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Shevek, 04:48
- SenderID license, Ernesto Baschny, 04:45
- Re: libspf2 compile hints, Shevek, 04:42
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Koen Martens, 04:29
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Howarth, 03:38
- Software is Buggy and Immature!, David Lawless, 02:56
- libspf2 compile hints, Chris Miller, 00:02
June 28, 2004
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Paul Howarth, 23:25
- Re: Inactive domains, Paul Howarth, 23:15
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Jeffrey Goldberg, 22:51
- Re: Why SOFTFAIL, Frank Ellermann, 19:53
- Re[2]: Why SOFTFAIL, Chris Drake, 18:42
- Re: Windows program to check spf records, Thomas Harold, 17:05
- Re: Unified SPF and "layers" & draft-ietf-marid-rationale-00.txt, Greg Connor, 16:59
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), Mark Shewmaker, 16:51
- Re: Software is Buggy and Immature!, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:33
- Software is Buggy and Immature!, David Lawless, 14:32
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), Seth Goodman, 13:53
- Re: Inactive domains, Lou Katz, 12:56
- Re: Inactive domains, Paul Howarth, 11:58
- Re: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Jonathan Gardner, 11:32
- Re: Inactive domains, Lou Katz, 11:27
- Re: Re: MARID consensus statement on record syntax and type, Jonathan Gardner, 11:20
- Re: Inactive domains, wayne, 11:17
- Re: Windows program to check spf records, Paul Ficinski, 11:03
- Re: Inactive domains, Lou Katz, 10:54
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 10:51
- Re: Inactive domains, Matthew Elvey, 10:46
- Re: Why SOFTFAIL, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:43
- Unified SPF and "layers" & draft-ietf-marid-rationale-00.txt, Matthew Elvey, 10:37
- Re: Windows program to check spf records, John Keown, 10:32
- Re: Inactive domains, Paul Howarth, 10:08
- spammers are welcome on this mailing list, Meng Weng Wong, 10:03
- Inactive domains, Lou Katz, 09:58
- RE: libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript fordetails, Michael R. Brumm, 09:04
- Re: Re: AOL's impatient servers, Alan Hodgson, 08:40
- Re: Re: AOL's impatient servers, David Brodbeck, 08:36
- Re: Re: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Xavier Beaudouin, 08:33
- Re: Unified SPF - new I-D, example: achurch.org, Meng Weng Wong, 08:07
- Re: Re: AOL's impatient servers, John Keown, 07:57
- "-all" for unused domains, Meng Weng Wong, 07:53
- the Aspen framework on Reputation and Accreditation, Meng Weng Wong, 07:50
- Re: AOL's impatient servers, Roger Moser, 07:42
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 06/28/04, Wayne Schlitt, 07:23
- RE : RE : Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names(updated), Bourque Daniel, 07:19
- Re: RE : Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Teddy, 07:08
- RE: RE : Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Michael R. Brumm, 06:49
- Re: Why SOFTFAIL, David Brodbeck, 06:16
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), David Brodbeck, 06:10
- Re: AOL's impatient servers (was: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?), David Brodbeck, 06:04
- RE: Why SOFTFAIL, Ryan Malayter, 05:59
- Re: libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript for details, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 05:31
- RE : Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Bourque Daniel, 05:25
- Re: libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript for details, Shevek, 05:11
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, Shevek, 04:37
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, Paul Howarth, 04:21
- RE: libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript for details, James Couzens, 03:41
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, David Lawless, 02:40
- RE: libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript for details, Michael R. Brumm, 01:39
- Re: Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:18
- Re: Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Lars B. Dybdahl, 01:11
- libspf2.org - Returned mail: see transcript for details, Chris Drake, 00:52
- Re: Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Teddy, 00:50
June 27, 2004
- Re: ANNOUNCE: libspf v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 2, Michael Weiner, 20:42
- Re: Why SOFTFAIL, Chris Drake, 19:39
- Re: ANNOUNCE: libspf v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 2, Meng Weng Wong, 19:14
- ANNOUNCE: libspf v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 2, James Couzens, 19:02
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, David Lawless, 15:41
- Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 15:15
- Re: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Greg Connor, 13:34
- Why SOFTFAIL, wayne, 12:43
- Re: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Frank Ellermann, 11:37
- Re: Mail::SPF::Query not recognising secondary MX using IPv6, Shevek, 08:17
- Re: Mail::SPF::Query not recognising secondary MX using IPv6, wayne, 06:17
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:38
- Re: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:35
- Re: Mail::SPF::Query not recognising secondary MX using IPv6, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:33
- Mail::SPF::Query not recognising secondary MX using IPv6, Graham Murray, 00:13
June 26, 2004
- ANNOUNCE: libspf v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 1, James Couzens, 22:36
- Re: Re: MARID consensus statement on record syntax and type, wayne, 21:07
- SPF stats for Postfix, Paul Bissex, 20:59
- Let's stop discussing XML (Was: Why XML), wayne, 20:57
- RE: Unification theory and "layers", Seth Goodman, 19:34
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), Seth Goodman, 18:37
- Re: Re: Why XML, Andy Bakun, 15:22
- Re: (off list) Re[2]: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Olaf Zaplinski, 15:09
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), Michael R. Brumm, 14:02
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Koen Martens, 12:03
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), Mark Shewmaker, 11:52
- RE: (Not) Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 11:21
- RE: Use of SPF with Shared MTAs (was Possible New Mechanism Prefix), spf, 11:12
- Re: AOL's impatient servers (was: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?), Tim Meadowcroft, 07:50
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, Meng Weng Wong, 07:30
- Re: Re: Why XML, Tim Meadowcroft, 07:28
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Hector Santos, 03:37
June 25, 2004
- Re: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Ralf Doeblitz, 23:58
- Re: Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, Greg Connor, 22:47
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 18:08
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 18:02
- please embargo slashdot announcement, Meng Weng Wong, 17:06
- Re: MARID consensus statement on record syntax and type, Meng Weng Wong, 14:58
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Mark Shewmaker, 14:47
- Re: Why XML, Matthew Elvey, 14:47
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Jonathan Gardner, 14:40
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Jason Gurtz, 14:26
- Re: Unified SPF - new I-D, example: achurch.org, Matthew Elvey, 14:04
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Matthew Elvey, 13:47
- Red Hat publishes, Jonathan Gardner, 13:34
- Re: IETF co-chairs rule: No on XML, Yes on SPF, Carl Hutzler, 13:29
- Re: IETF co-chairs rule: No on XML, Yes on SPF, Jonathan Gardner, 13:27
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Thomas Harold, 13:02
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 12:59
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Mark Shewmaker, 12:26
- IETF co-chairs rule: No on XML, Yes on SPF, wayne, 12:02
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Xavier Beaudouin, 10:55
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Jason Gurtz, 10:45
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 10:40
- Re: CallerId/SPF and MS License, wayne, 10:35
- Re: SPF usage stats needed for the IETF MARID work, James Couzens, 10:35
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Jason Gurtz, 10:31
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Jon Kyme, 10:27
- Re: SPF usage stats needed for the IETF MARID work, Daniel Taylor, 10:26
- Re: SPF usage stats needed for the IETF MARID work, Jonathan Gardner, 10:20
- Re[5]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Chris Drake, 10:13
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 08:58
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Xavier Beaudouin, 08:50
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 08:24
- CallerId/SPF and MS License, ralph , 08:10
- Re: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Chuck Mead, 07:56
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:11
- Re: Re: AOL's impatient servers, David Brodbeck, 07:07
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, David Brodbeck, 06:58
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Meng Weng Wong, 06:56
- searching the archives with google, Meng Weng Wong, 06:54
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Chuck Mead, 06:38
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Paul Howarth, 06:33
- RE: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Steven Foster, 06:22
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Carl Hutzler, 06:15
- Re: milter-spf 1.41: Failed to set timeout value!, Paul Howarth, 06:14
- milter-spf 1.41: Failed to set timeout value!, Jeff A. Earickson, 05:58
- Re: SPF usage stats needed for the IETF MARID work, Daniel Taylor, 05:50
- RE : Donations not overwhelmingly successful, Bourque Daniel, 05:20
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Xavier Beaudouin, 05:00
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Xavier Beaudouin, 04:58
- Blocking non-SPF Domains -- How?, David Lawless, 04:02
- Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:17
June 24, 2004
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Aredridel, 23:46
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:50
- SPF usage stats needed for the IETF MARID work, wayne, 22:42
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:12
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Richard Parker, 20:49
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Jason Gurtz, 20:32
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Andrew Church, 19:51
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Daniel Taylor, 19:48
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Andrew Church, 19:44
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, wayne, 19:42
- Unified SPF example: achurch.org, Meng Weng Wong, 19:37
- Re: AOL's impatient servers, Frank Ellermann, 19:33
- SPF "why.html" wording suggestion, Paul Bissex, 19:16
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Carl Hutzler, 19:03
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Andrew Church, 17:58
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Carl Hutzler, 16:31
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Carl Hutzler, 16:29
- Re: Donations not overwhelmingly successful, James Couzens, 15:42
- Re: Donations not overwhelmingly successful, Steven G. Willis, 15:00
- Donations not overwhelmingly successful, Meng Weng Wong, 14:52
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 14:49
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 14:45
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Jesus Duarte, 14:41
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, George Mitchell, 14:19
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Meng Weng Wong, 14:14
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 14:11
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Don Andrews, 14:09
- AOL's impatient servers (was: Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?), David Brodbeck, 13:59
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, David Brodbeck, 13:56
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:54
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Jason Gurtz, 13:50
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Mark Shewmaker, 13:48
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 13:05
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Meng Weng Wong, 12:52
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Chuck Mead, 12:14
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, frank, 11:09
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Carl Hutzler, 10:57
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, David Brodbeck, 10:56
- Re: AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, Carl Hutzler, 10:56
- AOL rejecting hosts with no rDNS?, systhine, 10:53
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, John Glube, 09:14
- Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), wayne, 09:04
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, administrator, 09:00
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:53
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, John Keown, 08:52
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:45
- RE: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 08:00
- Re: Possible New Mechanism Prefix, Meng Weng Wong, 07:39
- Possible New Mechanism Prefix, spf, 07:33
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Meng Weng Wong, 07:32
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Chris Miller, 07:28
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Meng Weng Wong, 07:18
- Re: A proposal for IPv6 addresses in SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:12
- RE: A proposal for IPv6 addresses in SPF, Gary Levell, 06:59
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Chris Miller, 06:51
- Re: Mechanism for Rejection of E-Mails, Jeffrey Goldberg, 06:50
- A proposal for IPv6 addresses in SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:22
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Koen Martens, 05:09
- Re[4]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Tony Finch, 04:17
- Re: Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, Koen Martens, 03:56
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Jon Kyme, 03:20
- Re: Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, Shevek, 01:23
- Re[4]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Chris Drake, 00:30
- Re: Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, Roger Moser, 00:13
June 23, 2004
- spf-milter and memory, Chris Miller, 23:42
- RE: Mechanism for Rejection of E-Mails, Sivakumar Sathyamurthy ( InfoSec)- CTD, Chennai, 21:22
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, John Glube, 20:08
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, David Brodbeck, 19:41
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Greg Connor, 17:03
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Mark C. Langston, 16:20
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Shevek, 16:09
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Mark C. Langston, 16:01
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Meng Weng Wong, 15:55
- Re: Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, Shevek, 15:47
- Re: Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Mark C. Langston, 15:36
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, administrator, 15:31
- Re: Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, James Couzens, 15:21
- PointnClick article by Jill Keogh, Meng Weng Wong, 14:44
- Bringing SPF/SRS to reality, Shevek, 13:46
- Re: Mechanism for Rejection of E-Mails, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12:26
- RE: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, David Brodbeck, 12:26
- Distributed reputation system; GOSSIP, Meng Weng Wong, 11:02
- Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 10:18
- RE: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, John Glube, 09:53
- Re: Re: Why XML, Lars Dybdahl, 09:00
- RE: Re: Why XML, Ryan Malayter, 08:52
- Re: Re: Why XML, David Brodbeck, 07:44
- Re: Re: Why XML, Lars B. Dybdahl, 07:39
- Re: Re: Why XML, David Brodbeck, 07:35
- RE: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, John Glube, 07:07
- RE: send money, Steven Foster, 06:48
- Re: Re: Why XML, Jon Kyme, 05:43
- Re: Meng's SPF wizard, Karl Prince, 05:34
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Carl Hutzler, 04:48
- Re[3]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Tony Finch, 04:03
- Re: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Jon Kyme, 03:52
- Re: Meng's SPF wizard, Shevek, 03:23
- Re: Why XML, Matthew Elvey, 01:58
June 22, 2004
- RE: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, John Glube, 21:59
- Re: send money, Meng Weng Wong, 21:56
- Re: Why XML, Douglas Otis, 18:37
- Re: send money, Michael Weiner, 17:30
- Re: send money, wayne, 17:22
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 17:07
- Re: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Carl Hutzler, 16:03
- Re: send money, Michael Weiner, 16:03
- Re: send money, Chris Drake, 15:56
- Re: send money, Weldon Whipple, 15:55
- Re[3]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Chris Drake, 15:49
- Re: Re: Why XML, Aredridel, 15:44
- Re: send money, Karl Prince, 15:22
- Re: Re: Why XML, Tim Meadowcroft, 15:05
- Re: Re: Why XML, Roger Moser, 14:54
- Distributed reputation system project announcement, Mark C. Langston, 14:48
- Re: send money, Michael Weiner, 14:47
- send money, Meng Weng Wong, 14:20
- RE: Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, John Glube, 13:47
- Re: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Larry Smith, 12:30
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Karl Prince, 12:09
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Seth Goodman, 12:00
- Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam Proposals, Karl Prince, 11:55
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, spf, 11:54
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Seth Goodman, 11:47
- RE: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Ryan Malayter, 11:47
- Re: Why XML, Hadmut Danisch, 11:38
- RE: RE: Why XML, Ryan Malayter, 11:27
- RE: Mechanism for Rejection of E-Mails, Narasimhan, Madhu, 11:04
- Re: Length of txt records, Hector Santos, 10:55
- RE: Why XML, terry, 10:49
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, John Glube, 10:43
- Re: Length of txt records, Tim Meadowcroft, 10:17
- Re: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Karl Prince, 09:14
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Karl Prince, 08:39
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Seth Goodman, 08:09
- Re: SPF for Exchange/IIS Available Again, Meng Weng Wong, 07:06
- Re: Length of txt records, wayne, 06:53
- Re: Length of txt records, Roger Moser, 06:39
- RE: Unification theory and "layers", Seth Goodman, 06:34
- Re: Length of txt records, Hector Santos, 05:54
- SPF for Exchange/IIS Available Again, Michael R. Brumm, 03:07
- Re[2]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Tony Finch, 02:46
June 21, 2004
- Mechanism for Rejection of E-Mails, Sivakumar Sathyamurthy ( InfoSec)- CTD, Chennai, 21:36
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 21:22
- (off list) Re[2]: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Chris Drake, 19:25
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), dsklist, 19:23
- Re: Ordering of mechanisms by the SPF record wizard, Meng Weng Wong, 19:19
- Ordering of mechanisms by the SPF record wizard, Thomas Harold, 18:58
- SPF draft review/suggestions to the editors, Matthew Elvey, 18:19
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 17:58
- pobox.com per-user spf support, Meng Weng Wong, 17:09
- Re[2]: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Chris Drake, 15:47
- Re: Unification theory and, Karl Prince, 15:06
- RE: Length of txt records, Ryan Malayter, 15:02
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Olaf, 14:47
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, SPF_0x1b, 14:13
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Rolf E. Sonneveld, 14:00
- Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong, 13:29
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Jeffrey Goldberg, 13:04
- Re: Length of txt records, Roy Badami, 12:24
- RE: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, John Glube, 12:20
- Re: Length of txt records, wayne, 11:40
- Re: Length of txt records, wayne, 11:36
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Greg Connor, 11:10
- Re: Length of txt records, Tim Meadowcroft, 10:54
- Re: [SPAM][93%]overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Jonathan Gardner, 10:49
- Length of txt records, Erik Aronesty, 09:39
- Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Roger Moser, 08:22
- Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 06/21/04, James Couzens, 08:20
- MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST, Meng Weng Wong, 08:15
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Frank Ellermann, 07:36
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Meng Weng Wong, 07:33
- Re: Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Tony Finch, 07:29
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Jeffrey Goldberg, 06:51
- Re: Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Paul Howarth, 06:22
- pobox.com per-user support, Meng Weng Wong, 06:15
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), spf, 06:11
- Informal request for comments (a new SMTP-CBV protocol), Chris Drake, 05:32
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Frank Ellermann, 03:14
- Re: Representing SPF at ETC, Matthew Elvey, 02:55
- Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann, 02:41
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Jon Kyme, 02:37
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 02:35
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 02:26
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 02:12
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Matthew Elvey, 01:54
- Re: bugs in libspf, Teddy, 01:17
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Paul Howarth, 00:18
June 20, 2004
- Representing SPF at ETC, Greg Connor, 23:55
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 06/21/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Graham Murray, 22:56
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Koen Martens, 21:56
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Koen Martens, 21:49
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Greg Connor, 21:35
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), wayne, 21:19
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, wayne, 21:02
- Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, wayne, 20:55
- Re: Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, David Brodbeck, 20:52
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, David Brodbeck, 20:46
- Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:24
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Lou Katz, 20:04
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Daniel Taylor, 19:52
- Re: overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Chris Drake, 19:06
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), spf, 18:50
- making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Matthew Elvey, 18:08
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID (blame me!), Matthew Elvey, 17:09
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Karl Prince, 14:32
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", wayne, 14:25
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Tony Finch, 14:17
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Greg Connor, 14:14
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", wayne, 14:06
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", wayne, 14:00
- Re: the, Karl Prince, 13:52
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Greg Connor, 13:49
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Tony Finch, 12:10
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Greg Connor, 12:01
- Re: v=spf1 +ptr - dangerous? answer: no, wayne, 11:46
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, list+spf-discuss, 11:39
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, list+spf-discuss, 11:26
- v=spf1 +ptr - dangerous?, Olaf, 11:07
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Tony Finch, 11:04
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, list+spf-discuss, 10:58
- Re: making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Frank Ellermann, 10:57
- Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann, 10:25
- overall paradigm shift in email, plus rambling philosophical discussion, Meng Weng Wong, 10:15
- Re: Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong, 09:42
- Re: the "implicit MX" rule, Frank Ellermann, 09:33
- making the policy decision: leveraging HTTPS, Meng Weng Wong, 09:26
- the "implicit MX" rule, Meng Weng Wong, 09:07
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Tim Meadowcroft, 00:59
June 19, 2004
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 20:35
- Re: Unification theory and "layers", Greg Connor, 15:55
- Re: donations, Greg Connor, 14:27
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, Greg Connor, 12:46
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Weldon Whipple, 05:40
- Attn: James Couzens, Chris Drake, 04:33
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, list+spf-discuss, 01:28
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, list+spf-discuss, 01:10
June 18, 2004
- Re: Jim Lyon's proposed possible extensions, Hector Santos, 23:46
- Re: Jim Lyon's proposed possible extensions, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:08
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:44
- Re: Jim Lyon's proposed possible extensions, James Couzens, 18:33
- Re: donations, Meng Weng Wong, 18:29
- Re: cnn report, James Couzens, 18:24
- Jim Lyon's proposed possible extensions, Jonathan Gardner, 16:37
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Koen Martens, 16:17
- RE: Unified SPF: example with single domain, single machine, John Glube, 16:14
- Re: cnn report, Karl Prince, 15:54
- Re: implicit mx rule, Karl Prince, 15:33
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Frank Ellermann, 15:31
- Re: implicit mx rule, Karl Prince, 15:30
- donations, Meng Weng Wong, 15:12
- Re: implicit mx rule, Meng Weng Wong, 15:09
- Re: implicit mx rule, Karl Prince, 14:59
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Karl Prince, 14:51
- implicit mx rule, Meng Weng Wong, 14:39
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Weldon Whipple, 14:37
- Re: Unified SPF: Example for dialup ISP, Karl Prince, 14:31
- SPF support added to CommuniGate Pro 4.2b6, j o a r, 14:26
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Meng Weng Wong, 13:41
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Meng Weng Wong, 13:39
- Unified SPF: Example for dialup ISP, Meng Weng Wong, 13:37
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Karl Prince, 13:26
- Re: Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, william(at)elan.net, 13:19
- Unified SPF: example with single domain, multiple machines, Meng Weng Wong, 13:01
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID, spf, 12:39
- Unified SPF: example with single domain, single machine, Meng Weng Wong, 12:23
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID, John Glube, 10:42
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, Jonathan Gardner, 09:55
- Re: Zafi.b, Karl Prince, 09:45
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Teddy, 09:38
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 09:38
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 09:12
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Teddy, 08:43
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 08:06
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 08:02
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Paul Howarth, 07:32
- RE: a grand unified theory of MARID, spf, 07:09
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Koen Martens, 07:08
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, David Brodbeck, 06:54
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, David Brodbeck, 06:48
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Daniel Taylor, 06:20
- Re: a grand unified theory of MARID, Steven Earl Smith, 06:03
- Re: Happy Birthday SPF!, Iván Eguiguren, 05:48
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Paul Howarth, 04:35
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 04:24
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Paul Howarth, 02:49
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Koen Martens, 02:43
June 17, 2004
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 22:50
- a grand unified theory of MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 18:23
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 17:50
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 17:27
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Greg Wooledge, 17:12
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Mark Shewmaker, 17:08
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, Greg Connor, 16:12
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Daniel Taylor, 15:40
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 14:51
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 14:38
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 13:43
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 12:45
- Re: Re: Drive Towards Consensus, Jonathan Gardner, 12:22
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, David Brodbeck, 11:53
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Tony Finch, 10:31
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "DoNot Spam" can work, Paul Howarth, 10:00
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 09:17
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, spf, 08:58
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "DoNot Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 08:36
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 07:59
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 07:53
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Daniel Taylor, 06:06
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Koen Martens, 02:43
June 16, 2004
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Paul Howarth, 23:36
- Re: Drive Towards Consensus, wayne, 21:59
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 18:16
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 15:21
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 13:17
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Jonathan Gardner, 13:15
- Re: 6o4.ca MTA statistics, Jon Kyme, 12:39
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Lars Dybdahl, 12:11
- cnn report, Waitman C Gobble II, 12:08
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, John Glube, 12:03
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Lars Dybdahl, 12:02
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Jonathan Gardner, 11:44
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Gary Levell, 11:42
- RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Seth Goodman, 10:01
- Re: Zafi.b, Lars Dybdahl, 08:26
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Daniel Taylor, 08:18
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Nigel, 08:15
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Paul Howarth, 08:02
- Re[2]: Spf sendmail-milter, Chris Drake, 07:54
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Paul Howarth, 07:43
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Nigel, 07:37
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, David Brodbeck, 06:09
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Paul Howarth, 03:31
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, James Couzens, 02:58
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Nigel, 02:51
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Paul Howarth, 02:31
- Re: SPF Headers, Paul Howarth, 02:22
- 6o4.ca MTA statistics, James Couzens, 02:22
- SPF Headers, Nigel, 02:08
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Nigel, 01:46
- Re: Spf sendmail-milter, Paul Howarth, 00:25
June 15, 2004
- Re: Zafi.b, Koen Martens, 23:45
- Re: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Lars Dybdahl, 22:59
- FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work, Meng Weng Wong, 14:35
- Spf sendmail-milter, Nigel Kilner, 14:27
- Re: Zafi.b, Jeffrey Goldberg, 14:13
- RE: Re: Bootstrapping trust model, Seth Goodman, 14:01
- RE: Zafi.b, spf, 13:24
- Re: Zafi.b, Fridrik Skulason, 13:18
- RE: Zafi.b, spf, 13:11
- OT: Hungarian and SPF meanings [was: Zafi.b], Jeffrey Goldberg, 13:09
- Re: Zafi.b, Fridrik Skulason, 13:02
- RE: The SPF Acronym Confussion, Brad Glore, 11:55
- (fixed sorry) Yahoo to give paying e-mail customers 2GB of storage + more, James Couzens, 11:53
- Yahoo to give paying e-mail customers 2GB of storage + more, James Couzens, 11:45
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Steven Earl Smith, 11:38
- RE: Why is this failing? was: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet was: Why is this failing?, spf, 11:10
- RE: Large address scope problem, list+spf-discuss, 11:02
- Re: The SPF Acronym Confussion, list+spf-discuss, 10:57
- Re: Zafi.b, Lars Dybdahl, 09:02
- RE: The SPF Acronym Confussion, Brad Glore, 08:35
- Google's GMail publishes SPF, James Couzens, 08:25
- Zafi.b, administrator, 08:04
- Re: Bootstrapping trust model, Frank Ellermann, 05:09
- Re: Large address scope problem, Frank Ellermann, 03:15
- Re: The SPF Acronym Confussion, Lars B. Dybdahl, 00:21
June 14, 2004
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Lars B. Dybdahl, 23:50
- Re: Happy Birthday SPF!, Koen Martens, 23:44
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:08
- RE: Large address scope problem, spf, 18:24
- RE: Large address scope problem, Gary Levell, 17:20
- Re: Why is this failing?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 16:42
- Re: Large address scope problem, Jeffrey Goldberg, 16:32
- Re: [OT] AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Greg Wooledge, 15:58
- Re: Happy Birthday SPF!, Meng Weng Wong, 15:05
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Tony Finch, 14:23
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 13:27
- Re: Large address scope problem, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12:16
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Jeffrey Goldberg, 11:50
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Koen Martens, 11:50
- Re: The SPF Acronym Confussion, Koen Martens, 11:46
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Tony Finch, 11:09
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 10:59
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Alan Hodgson, 10:47
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Tim Meadowcroft, 10:41
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 10:25
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 10:11
- Re: Points of rejection, Tony Finch, 10:03
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 09:59
- RE: Large address scope problem, Gary Levell, 09:46
- IETF Jabber session on XML today, wayne, 09:45
- RE: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Seth Goodman, 09:45
- Happy Birthday SPF!, wayne, 09:12
- RE: Bootstrapping trust model (was Re: a "never relays" parameter), Seth Goodman, 09:05
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Tony Finch, 08:51
- Re: Large address scope problem, wayne, 08:43
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 08:42
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 08:32
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Tony Finch, 08:31
- OT: Obnoxious disclaimer, Paul Iadonisi, 08:31
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 08:03
- Re: Large address scope problem, Jon Kyme, 07:10
- RE: Large address scope problem, spf, 06:49
- The SPF Acronym Confussion, Brad Glore, 06:45
- Large address scope problem, Gary Levell, 06:36
- RE: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Stefan Engelbert, 06:21
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Daniel Taylor, 06:10
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 05:54
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 05:51
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 05:40
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Roger Moser, 05:38
- Re: Why is this failing?, wayne, 05:18
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 04:48
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, David Woodhouse, 04:43
- Re: GMX, Alain Knaff, 04:22
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Roger Moser, 04:07
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 02:57
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 02:54
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 02:46
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Koen Martens, 02:34
- Best way to persuade ISP to trial SPF?, James Reather, 02:19
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it isNOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 02:14
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 02:12
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 02:09
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it isNOT time yet, Roger Moser, 02:02
- Re: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Jon Kyme, 01:57
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Koen Martens, 01:51
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 01:42
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, David Woodhouse, 01:40
- Re: GMX, Teddy, 00:36
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Seth Goodman, 00:35
- Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Teddy, 00:22
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 00:20
June 13, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 06/14/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:24
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 23:00
- Bootstrapping trust model (was Re: a "never relays" parameter), Greg Connor, 21:14
- Re: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Mark C. Langston, 20:21
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Greg Connor, 20:16
- Re: [Waitman] Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else - Publicity, Waitman C Gobble II, 20:07
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else - Publicity, Greg Connor, 19:59
- RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Seth Goodman, 16:51
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Seth Goodman, 16:19
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 13:57
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 12:52
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 12:02
- Re: Why is this failing?, James Couzens, 11:54
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 11:41
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 11:35
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Michael Weiner, 11:31
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Michael Weiner, 11:26
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Michael Weiner, 11:21
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 11:19
- Re: Why is this failing?, wayne, 11:12
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 11:12
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 11:10
- Re: Why is this failing?, Michael Weiner, 11:07
- Re: bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Michael Weiner, 11:01
- Re: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Meng Weng Wong, 11:00
- Re: Why is this failing?, wayne, 10:59
- bad advice: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, wayne, 10:55
- Not too early. Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, Daniel Taylor, 10:52
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, James Couzens, 10:29
- Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet, James Couzens, 10:27
- Re: Why is this failing?, James Couzens, 08:23
- Why is this failing?, Michael Weiner, 07:12
- [OT] AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, James Couzens, 06:47
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, James Couzens, 06:22
- GMX, Ernesto Baschny, 06:21
- Re: Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, James Couzens, 06:21
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, James Pullicino, 03:14
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars B. Dybdahl, 03:06
June 12, 2004
- RE: RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, James Couzens, 15:48
- RE: RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, spf, 15:11
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Tim Meadowcroft, 14:10
- Re: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Jon Kyme, 14:03
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Paul Iadonisi, 13:45
- RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Michel Py, 13:06
- RE: reputation systems and RHSBLs, Michel Py, 12:58
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars Dybdahl, 12:34
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo, 10:13
- reputation systems and RHSBLs, Meng Weng Wong, 09:25
- Re: Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Meng Weng Wong, 09:17
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Frank Ellermann, 08:52
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else - Publicity, Jillk, 08:12
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Greg Wooledge, 08:04
- Re: Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Carl Hutzler, 07:55
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo, 07:26
- Re: Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Fridrik Skulason, 07:05
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo, 06:46
- Re: Match, Koen Martens, 06:25
- Match, mike, 05:58
- Re: Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Tim Meadowcroft, 05:28
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo, 05:07
- RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Julian Mehnle, 04:16
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Koen Martens, 04:14
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Tim Meadowcroft, 03:01
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars Dybdahl, 02:41
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars Dybdahl, 02:40
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars B. Dybdahl, 02:30
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Koen Martens, 02:25
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Lars B. Dybdahl, 02:17
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Koen Martens, 02:14
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 01:15
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Tim Meadowcroft, 01:06
June 11, 2004
- Re: Defining the Layers, wayne, 22:43
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Greg Connor, 22:37
- Defining the Layers, Greg Connor, 22:09
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:34
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, wayne, 17:17
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 16:00
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 14:53
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Daniel Quinlan, 14:14
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 13:54
- Re: Example, Roger Moser, 13:09
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jon Kyme, 13:02
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Scott Taylor, 12:50
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Alan Hodgson, 12:07
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Meng Weng Wong, 11:54
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 11:50
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, wayne, 11:46
- RE: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, spf, 11:44
- Re: [spf-discuss] usefulness of postmaster account, Jonathan Gardner, 11:43
- snowball effect strategy for SPF conversion, Meng Weng Wong, 11:39
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 11:37
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Meng Weng Wong, 11:31
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Meng Weng Wong, 11:28
- Re: [spf-discuss] AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 11:22
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Paul Iadonisi, 11:07
- usefulness of postmaster account, Andy Bakun, 10:54
- Re: spf-deployment list - roll spf-help into it, Koen Martens, 10:40
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:37
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Alan Hodgson, 10:25
- Re: [Waitman] Re: [spf-discuss] AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Waitman C. Gobble, II, 10:13
- Re: [spf-discuss] AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 09:59
- spf-deployment list - roll spf-help into it, George Young1, 09:30
- Example, mike, 08:49
- Re: proper IP4/CIDR format, Hector Santos, 08:45
- Re: proper IP4/CIDR format, wayne, 07:51
- proper IP4/CIDR format, Hector Santos, 06:48
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, James Couzens, 03:15
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jon Kyme, 02:46
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jon Kyme, 02:38
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 00:15
June 10, 2004
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 23:49
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Graham Murray, 23:07
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 22:47
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:36
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:07
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:54
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 11:52
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:39
- Re: Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Koen Martens, 11:18
- Standard reply for bounced forgeries from clueless admins?, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:14
- Re: Question on how things work, Weldon Whipple, 10:57
- Re: Question on how things work, Paul Howarth, 09:57
- Re: EXP, Angus, 09:56
- Re: Question on how things work, Weldon Whipple, 09:45
- Re: EXP, mike, 08:40
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:31
- Re: EXP, spf, 08:27
- RE: Question on how things work, Seth Goodman, 08:03
- EXP, mike, 07:48
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 07:38
- RE: RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, terry, 05:36
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, wayne, 05:31
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Julian Mehnle, 05:26
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Julian Mehnle, 05:15
June 09, 2004
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Roger Moser, 23:24
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:48
- Re: help with reference implementation, Frank Ellermann, 20:49
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:18
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:11
- Re: Question on how things work, wayne, 19:00
- RE: Question on how things work, Seth Goodman, 18:08
- Re: Question on how things work, wayne, 17:54
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 17:21
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Seth Goodman, 15:28
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 15:06
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:26
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:19
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Graham Murray, 14:12
- RE: you are invited to join spf-deployment, Vivien M., 13:58
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, spf, 13:40
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 13:30
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Daniel Quinlan, 13:18
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, spf, 13:09
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Seth Goodman, 13:08
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Daniel Quinlan, 13:04
- RE: a "never relays" parameter, Seth Goodman, 12:56
- Re: you are invited to join spf-deployment, Gerhard W. Recher, 12:29
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Seth Goodman, 12:05
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Daniel Quinlan, 11:50
- Re: Points of rejection, Daniel Quinlan, 11:44
- you are invited to join spf-deployment, Meng Weng Wong, 11:40
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:18
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, list+spf-discuss, 11:12
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:12
- Re: AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, Jonathan Gardner, 10:28
- AOL to ESPs: Comply with SPF, Or Else, mengwong, 09:51
- RE: help with reference implementation, Michael R. Brumm, 09:38
- Re: XML in DNS, wayne, 09:34
- Re: help with reference implementation, wayne, 09:26
- XML in DNS, wayne, 09:04
- RE: help with reference implementation, Philip Tucker, 08:33
- RE: help with reference implementation, Philip Tucker, 08:33
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Teddy, 08:27
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Michael R. Brumm, 08:02
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Aredridel, 08:00
- RE: help with reference implementation, Michael R. Brumm, 07:34
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, administrator, 06:45
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Mark Shewmaker, 06:13
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 04:45
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Mark Shewmaker, 03:22
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Mark Shewmaker, 00:39
- Fetching SPF-Layer-2 policy data via ESMTP?, Chris Zumbrunn, 00:18
June 08, 2004
- slightly O/T: routers/firewalls acting as DNS proxies, Michel Py, 20:13
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michel Py, 19:16
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, wayne, 18:51
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, wayne, 18:46
- Points of rejection, Andrew Church, 18:44
- Re: help with reference implementation, wayne, 18:42
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, wayne, 18:20
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Seth Goodman, 17:54
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Mark Shewmaker, 17:11
- Inconsistant return status from sendmail-milter-spf-1.41.pl, Jeff Mandel, 16:17
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:42
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Daniel Quinlan, 15:34
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:29
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, administrator, 15:28
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:22
- Re: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, Koen Martens, 14:49
- Re: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, spf, 14:47
- Re: bake sale, fund drive, t-shirts, cafe press, etc, Jameel Akari, 14:39
- Re: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, Meng Weng Wong, 14:36
- bake sale, fund drive, t-shirts, cafe press, etc, Meng Weng Wong, 14:26
- RE: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, spf, 14:26
- RE: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, Michel Py, 14:24
- Re: SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 14:17
- SPFv1 needs SRS help; also, Internet gazillionaires please donate, Meng Weng Wong, 14:03
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, spf, 13:50
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Różański Sergiusz, 13:26
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:03
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Eric Girard, 12:13
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, list+spf-discuss, 12:06
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Gerhard W. Recher, 12:06
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Eric Girard, 11:59
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Gerhard W. Recher, 11:52
- Re: "fallback" domain list, Meng Weng Wong, 11:35
- Re: Postfix and SPF question, Jim Ramsay, 10:31
- help with reference implementation, Philip Tucker, 10:18
- Re: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Frank Ellermann, 10:08
- Re: Postfix and SPF question, Jim Ramsay, 09:56
- Re: Re: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, wayne, 09:17
- Re: DLL, Karl Prince, 08:34
- Re: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Frank Ellermann, 08:30
- DLL, mike, 08:16
- Re: a "never relays" parameter, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:35
- Re: Re: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, wayne, 07:24
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, David Brodbeck, 07:17
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, David Brodbeck, 06:54
- "fallback" domain list, Gary Levell, 04:40
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Karl Prince, 03:10
- Re: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Frank Ellermann, 03:01
- Re: everybody please calm down :), Frank Ellermann, 02:17
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Teddy, 02:11
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Karl J. Smith, 02:01
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Alain Knaff, 00:44
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Teddy, 00:21
June 07, 2004
- a "never relays" parameter, Daniel Quinlan, 23:21
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michel Py, 23:18
- RE: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Nate Leon, 22:53
- RE: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Greg Connor, 22:43
- RE: Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Nate Leon, 22:39
- Review: SPF at INBOX Event, Greg Connor, 22:25
- using trusted-forwarder.org, Meng Weng Wong, 22:12
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF., David Nicol, 20:41
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Michel Py, 20:36
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, wayne, 19:42
- RE: bathroom reading, Brad Glore, 19:19
- RE: ebay problem, Gerhard W. Recher, 17:22
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Greg Wooledge, 17:16
- RE: ebay problem, Michael R. Brumm, 17:04
- Re: ebay problem, Gerhard W. Recher, 16:56
- Re: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Mark Shewmaker, 16:56
- Re: ebay problem, Jonathan Gardner, 16:49
- RE: ebay problem, Michael R. Brumm, 16:47
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michael R. Brumm, 16:44
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Michael R. Brumm, 16:44
- Re: ebay problem, Meng Weng Wong, 16:38
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Billy B. Bilano, 16:07
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Ryan Malayter, 16:02
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Greg Wooledge, 15:47
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Theo Van Dinter, 15:33
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michel Py, 14:27
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, terry, 14:11
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Eric Girard, 14:03
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Scott Taylor, 13:53
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, James Couzens, 13:14
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Stuart D. Gathman, 13:11
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:09
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michel Py, 13:03
- RE: everybody please calm down :), terry, 13:02
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Julian Mehnle, 12:58
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Scott Kitterman, 12:42
- FPs due to verizon -all, Meng Weng Wong, 12:32
- Re: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Xavier Beaudouin, 12:21
- RE: everybody please calm down :), Dennis Dayman, 12:20
- Re: ebay problem, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:07
- Re: everybody please calm down :), Carl Hutzler, 12:03
- everybody please calm down :), Meng Weng Wong, 11:43
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, James Couzens, 11:30
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, list+spf-discuss, 11:23
- Re: ebay problem, wayne, 11:21
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 11:19
- Re: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, list+spf-discuss, 11:09
- RE: Re: Postfix and SPF question, Eric Girard, 11:09
- Re: Postfix and SPF question, Jim Ramsay, 11:02
- Re: ebay problem, Chuck Mead, 10:55
- RE: ebay problem, Minica, Nelson (EDS), 10:54
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Julian Mehnle, 10:49
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Jonathan Gardner, 10:47
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Julian Mehnle, 10:36
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Seth Goodman, 10:36
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Tim Meadowcroft, 10:35
- Re: ebay problem, Jonathan Gardner, 10:29
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Julian Mehnle, 10:12
- RE: RE: Layered SPF was [Forking SPF], Scott Kitterman, 10:11
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Graham Murray, 10:08
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:04
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Seth Goodman, 09:59
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Michel Py, 09:55
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:54
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:46
- RE: Layered SPF was [Forking SPF], DJ Coster, 09:45
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, terry, 09:43
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Daniel Taylor, 09:30
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Michel Py, 09:29
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, David Brodbeck, 09:22
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Ryan Malayter, 09:20
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Seth Goodman, 09:20
- RE: RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Michel Py, 09:17
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:08
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Jim Hill, 09:07
- RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Julian Mehnle, 09:05
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Teddy, 09:04
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:54
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 08:53
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Teddy, 08:50
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Julian Mehnle, 08:49
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Greg Connor, 08:49
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, wayne, 08:40
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Karl Prince, 08:35
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Greg Connor, 08:28
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Teddy, 08:28
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, wayne, 08:28
- RE: phishing & MS MUAs, Ryan Malayter, 08:25
- Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, spf, 08:24
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Teddy, 08:22
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, spf, 08:21
- RE: Re[2]: phishing & MS MUAs, Michel Py, 08:16
- Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Julian Mehnle, 08:08
- RE: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Michel Py, 08:07
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, wayne, 08:02
- Re: Off-topic: pgp, Jon Kyme, 07:52
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, wayne, 07:47
- RE: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Seth Goodman, 07:44
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Greg Connor, 07:43
- Off-topic: pgp, spf, 06:27
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), terry, 06:12
- Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1, Julian Mehnle, 06:09
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 05:57
- RE: Re[2]: phishing & MS MUAs, Scott Kitterman, 05:56
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Karl Prince, 05:53
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Karl Prince, 05:41
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Angus, 05:35
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Karl Prince, 05:25
- Re[2]: phishing & MS MUAs, Chris Drake, 05:16
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Jim Hill, 04:27
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 04:21
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, James Couzens, 04:03
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Karl Prince, 03:55
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 06/07/04, Wayne Schlitt, 03:23
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 03:16
- Re: phishing & MS MUAs, Shevek, 03:13
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Gerhard W. Recher, 02:23
- Re: SPF: Not just a clever idea, Teddy, 01:30
- SPF: Not just a clever idea, Greg Connor, 01:07
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Paul Howarth, 00:59
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Ernesto Baschny, 00:36
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Teddy, 00:15
June 06, 2004
- RE: phishing & MS MUAs, Vivien M., 23:30
- Re: phishing & MS MUAs, Meng Weng Wong, 23:24
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Greg Connor, 23:22
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 23:17
- phishing & MS MUAs, Gerhard W. Recher, 22:51
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:36
- phishing & MS MUAs, Chris Drake, 21:26
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, wayne, 20:35
- RE: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Seth Goodman, 18:51
- RE: Unnecessary complication in SES - what does it really do?, Seth Goodman, 18:20
- RE: SES - what exactly is it and what is it supposed to do?, Seth Goodman, 18:14
- RE: Unnecessary complication in SES - what does it really do?, Shevek, 17:46
- Re[2]: Dear Microsoft,, Chris Drake, 17:27
- RE: Unnecessary complication in SES - what does it really do?, Seth Goodman, 17:24
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, James Couzens, 17:23
- RE: OT was RE: Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Michael R. Brumm, 17:07
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Aredridel, 16:49
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Shevek, 16:44
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Aredridel, 16:41
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Shevek, 16:32
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Aredridel, 16:29
- SES - what exactly is it and what is it supposed to do?, Shevek, 16:26
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 16:04
- OT was RE: Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Michel Py, 15:53
- Unnecessary complication in SES - what does it really do?, Shevek, 15:13
- RE: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 15:11
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Shevek, 14:56
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 14:49
- RE: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Shevek, 14:45
- Re: Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 14:43
- RE: Dear Microsoft,, Michael R. Brumm, 14:34
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 14:27
- Forwarding Methods Available with SPF, Michael R. Brumm, 14:04
- RE: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Michael R. Brumm, 14:03
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Greg Connor, 13:54
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 13:42
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 13:39
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Frank Ellermann, 13:27
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Scott Taylor, 13:27
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Greg Connor, 13:19
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, wayne, 13:18
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 13:06
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, Greg Connor, 12:52
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 12:47
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, wayne, 12:45
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 12:40
- Re: Dear Microsoft,, wayne, 12:11
- Dear Microsoft,, James Couzens, 11:54
- RE: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 11:43
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Shevek, 11:24
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Shevek, 11:13
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 10:51
- RE: ebay problem, George Young1, 09:59
- Re: problem when outbound and dest is the same mahine, Mark Jeftovic, 09:45
- problem when outbound and dest is the same mahine, Mark Jeftovic, 09:43
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 09:07
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Taylor, 07:50
- Re: ebay problem, Carl Hutzler, 07:44
- Re: Standard for SES (signed envelope sender), Shevek, 06:42
- Re: Standard for SES (signed envelope sender), Roger Moser, 06:39
- Re: Standard for SES (signed envelope sender), Shevek, 05:39
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Shevek, 05:30
- Re: Question on how things work, Weldon Whipple, 05:20
June 05, 2004
- Standard for SES (signed envelope sender), Roger Moser, 23:45
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Frank Ellermann, 23:36
- Re: Question on how things work, Frank Ellermann, 22:24
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Taylor, 20:17
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Daniel Taylor, 20:08
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 20:01
- Re: ebay problem, wayne, 19:22
- Re[2]: ebay problem, Chris Drake, 18:54
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Shevek, 17:31
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, administrator, 16:07
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Michael R. Brumm, 15:59
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Daniel Taylor, 15:51
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:34
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Mark Shewmaker, 15:21
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:16
- Re: Question on how things work, Greg Connor, 14:31
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Michael R. Brumm, 14:13
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Michael R. Brumm, 13:57
- RE: Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Michael R. Brumm, 13:53
- RE: Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Seth Goodman, 13:05
- Re: Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Spf Pobox Com, 12:36
- RE: Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Michael R. Brumm, 12:24
- Re: ebay problem, Gerhard W. Recher, 12:06
- Re: ebay problem, Angus, 11:53
- RE: ebay problem, Gerhard W. Recher, 11:47
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 11:44
- RE: ebay problem, Michael R. Brumm, 11:39
- RE: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 11:39
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, George Mitchell, 11:30
- Re: ebay problem, Aredridel, 11:30
- Re: ebay problem, hostmaster, 11:23
- RE: Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Seth Goodman, 11:19
- Re: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:17
- RE: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Seth Goodman, 11:16
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Mark, 11:11
- Re: ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:54
- Why SUBMITTER as parameter and not as seperate command in ESMTP?, Spf Pobox Com, 10:54
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Meng Weng Wong, 10:13
- Re: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Cory Wagner, 10:09
- Re: short-term ISP policies, Meng Weng Wong, 09:56
- ENVID to prevent forged bounces with SUBMITTER?, Michael R. Brumm, 09:27
- Re: ebay problem, Angus, 07:15
- Re: ebay problem, wayne, 06:34
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Frank Ellermann, 06:33
- ebay problem, hostmaster, 06:21
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Shevek, 06:17
- Re: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Aredridel, 06:12
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Frank Ellermann, 05:05
- Re: Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:32
- Re: short-term ISP policies, Paul Howarth, 02:33
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Frank Ellermann, 00:34
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Frank Ellermann, 00:10
June 04, 2004
- RE: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, Michel Py, 21:36
- RE: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, Michel Py, 20:22
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Michel Py, 19:41
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 17:55
- Re: short-term ISP policies, David Brodbeck, 17:17
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Billy B. Bilano, 17:14
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Seth Goodman, 17:12
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 17:07
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Michel Py, 16:59
- Re: Question on how things work, Weldon Whipple, 16:20
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, James Couzens, 16:13
- Re: Question on how things work, Weldon Whipple, 15:47
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Scott Kitterman, 15:38
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Mark Shewmaker, 15:38
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Justin Mason, 15:37
- Re: Question on how things work, Meng Weng Wong, 15:27
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Greg Wooledge, 15:24
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:15
- Re: Question on how things work, James Couzens, 15:14
- Re: get your ISP to do spf, James Couzens, 15:04
- short-term ISP policies, Koen Martens, 14:54
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:52
- get your ISP to do spf, Koen Martens, 14:43
- Re: Question on how things work, Meng Weng Wong, 14:33
- Re: Question on how things work, John Capo, 14:27
- Re: Question on how things work, Dave Lewis, 14:26
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Billy B. Bilano, 13:52
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 13:38
- Re: Question on how things work, Paul Howarth, 13:13
- Re: Question on how things work, Meng Weng Wong, 13:07
- Re: Question on how things work, Dave Lewis, 12:56
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:50
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 12:43
- Re: Question on how things work, Meng Weng Wong, 12:36
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, william(at)elan.net, 12:32
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, william(at)elan.net, 12:20
- Question on how things work, Dave Lewis, 12:15
- Re: A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Mark C. Langston, 11:48
- Re: DNS & XML, James Couzens, 11:36
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Ryan Malayter, 11:34
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:33
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:25
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, James Couzens, 11:24
- A SPIFFY plan for SPF!, Billy B. Bilano, 10:59
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Quinlan, 10:57
- RE: congrats everyone, Nate Leon, 10:02
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 09:45
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 09:37
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Paul Howarth, 09:19
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, David Brodbeck, 09:11
- Re: Spamware checking SPF records?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 09:04
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Alan Hodgson, 08:22
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Roger Moser, 08:09
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 07:30
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Michael R. Brumm, 06:33
- Problem with external forwarders, Gerhard W. Recher, 06:25
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Shevek, 06:22
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vsSenderPolicy Framework, Mark Shewmaker, 06:01
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 05:53
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 05:14
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Taylor, 05:10
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Roger Moser, 04:40
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Alain Knaff, 04:38
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 04:34
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Roger Moser, 04:21
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Koen Martens, 04:08
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Michael R. Brumm, 03:48
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vsSenderPolicy Framework, Seth Goodman, 03:48
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Shevek, 03:44
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Shevek, 03:42
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Paul Howarth, 03:42
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Paul Robinson, 03:31
- Re: Backup MX + SPF?, Paul Howarth, 03:23
- Backup MX + SPF?, Paul Robinson, 03:09
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 03:06
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Peter Bowyer, 02:55
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 02:52
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 02:50
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Peter Bowyer, 02:27
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Paul Howarth, 02:23
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Michael R. Brumm, 02:13
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Paul Howarth, 02:13
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 02:01
- Re: [Waitman] Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Waitman C. Gobble, II, 01:48
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Graham Murray, 01:26
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs SenderPolicy Framework, Mark Shewmaker, 01:19
- Re: congrats everyone, Meng Weng Wong, 00:17
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Meng Weng Wong, 00:15
- congrats everyone, Meng Weng Wong, 00:13
June 03, 2004
- Re: Spamware checking SPF records?, Daniel Quinlan, 23:45
- Re: Spamware checking SPF records?, Paul Howarth, 23:34
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Quinlan, 23:27
- Re: [Waitman] Spamware checking SPF records?, Waitman C. Gobble, II, 21:55
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:07
- RE: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, Michael R. Brumm, 21:05
- Spamware checking SPF records?, Jeffrey Goldberg, 21:01
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 21:01
- Re: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, David McNett, 20:41
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Mark Shewmaker, 20:38
- Re: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, wayne, 20:37
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Seth Goodman, 18:49
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Michel Py, 18:20
- RE: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Michael R. Brumm, 18:02
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Michael R. Brumm, 17:12
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 16:51
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Andy Bakun, 16:48
- Re: SUBMITTER is a bad idea, Greg Connor, 16:47
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Quinlan, 16:41
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, David Brodbeck, 16:20
- RE: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Seth Goodman, 15:35
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Shevek, 14:47
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Shevek, 14:47
- SUBMITTER is a bad idea, spf, 14:45
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Daniel Quinlan, 14:44
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Greg Connor, 14:25
- Re: A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Dustin D. Trammell, 14:15
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Dustin D. Trammell, 14:12
- Way OT: Spock [Was: rationale document], Jeffrey Goldberg, 13:56
- A hole in planned phishing-prevention?, Ryan Malayter, 13:54
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), David Brodbeck, 13:42
- Re: rationale document, James Pullicino, 13:39
- RE: first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, Michel Py, 13:07
- first draft, proposed agenda for SPF/ID BOF today at Inbox Event, Meng Weng Wong, 11:50
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs SenderPolicy Framework, Seth Goodman, 10:57
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs SenderPolicy Framework, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:41
- Re: Milter-SPF issues, Paul Howarth, 10:10
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs SenderPolicy Framework, Seth Goodman, 09:51
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 09:46
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Daryl Odnert, 09:43
- Milter-SPF issues, maeder+spf, 09:33
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), Adrian Barker, 09:03
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Paul Howarth, 07:41
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 07:32
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 07:21
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Paul Howarth, 06:57
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Michael R. Brumm, 06:29
- Re: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, David McNett, 06:28
- RE: Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Michael R. Brumm, 06:26
- Re: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 06:15
- Re: Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, wayne, 06:15
- Re: Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, william(at)elan.net, 06:01
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, Michael R. Brumm, 05:29
- RE: dynamic DNS and SPF?, terry, 05:13
- dynamic DNS and SPF?, Lotas Smartman, 05:06
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, william(at)elan.net, 04:09
- Released: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Michael R. Brumm, 03:32
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Mark Shewmaker, 03:28
June 02, 2004
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:12
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Seth Goodman, 19:50
- SPF evolution and extensions: One record, many policies., wayne, 19:15
- Re: Some kind of AOL authentication is going on?, Meng Weng Wong, 18:52
- XML thoughts overview (was: XML Poll), wayne, 17:22
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Mark Shewmaker, 16:58
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Chuck Mead, 14:51
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Jonathan Gardner, 14:26
- Re: Some kind of AOL authentication is going on?, Greg Connor, 14:26
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Chuck Mead, 14:18
- RE: Domain Keys vs Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, william(at)elan.net, 14:09
- Re: Some kind of AOL authentication is going on?, Michael Weiner, 14:04
- Some kind of AOL authentication is going on?, George Young1, 14:02
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:46
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers?, Dean Gibson (Mail Administrator), 13:33
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Jeremy T. Bouse, 13:00
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, Carl Hutzler, 12:08
- Re: Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, wayne, 11:57
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Waitman Gobble, 11:11
- Is AOL using SPF on all its servers? I think not, George Young1, 10:59
- DNS & XML, administrator, 10:47
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Lou Katz, 10:33
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), Greg Connor, 10:17
- RE: Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Seth Goodman, 09:46
- Re: was: XML Poll, wayne, 09:16
- Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, George Young1, 09:09
- libspf-alt support for XML, etc. (was: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support), wayne, 09:07
- Re: XML typing, Jon Kyme, 08:16
- Re: XML typing, Frank Ellermann, 07:35
- Re: Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:27
- Re: XML typing, Jon Kyme, 06:54
- Re: XML typing, Frank Ellermann, 05:43
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Daniel Taylor, 05:28
- Re: Re: was: XML Poll, Peter Bowyer, 04:22
- XML typing was: Re: was: XML Poll, Jon Kyme, 01:30
- Re: Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, william(at)elan.net, 01:06
- Sender Permitted From vs Sender Policy Framework, Meng Weng Wong, 00:41
June 01, 2004
- political aspects and aiding deployment, Andy Bakun, 23:52
- RE: was: XML Poll, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 22:21
- Re: was: XML Poll, Frank Ellermann, 22:09
- Re: rationale document, Frank Ellermann, 21:28
- Poll results so far, george+spf, 21:09
- XML is the basis for a new M$ style security nightmare, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:06
- Re: was: XML Poll, Andy Bakun, 20:59
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), Jeffrey Goldberg, 20:29
- Re: was: XML Poll, dave wanta, 20:20
- was: XML Poll, Frank Ellermann, 20:02
- exists as the basis for all directives, Andy Bakun, 19:52
- Re: SPFv1 is already extensible, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:17
- Re: SPFv1 is already extensible, David Nicol, 19:01
- Re: Should SPF be Frozen or Extensible? (XML insights), David Nicol, 18:46
- Re: SPFv1 is already extensible, David Nicol, 18:26
- Re: was XML Poll, David Nicol, 18:14
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, David Nicol, 17:41
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 16:52
- Re: Is extensibility and issue? - was XML Poll, David Nicol, 16:23
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Peter Bowyer, 15:39
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:29
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Mark, 14:43
- Re: rationale document, Tim Meadowcroft, 14:29
- XML - why you only need pay for it if you use it, Tim Meadowcroft, 14:20
- listbox.com needs to check SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:16
- Re: THIS POLL IS USELESS, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:46
- Re: the problem of regime change, Jonathan Gardner, 13:12
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, David Brodbeck, 13:06
- Re: THIS POLL IS USELESS, list+spf-discuss, 12:48
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, administrator, 12:20
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), James Couzens, 12:08
- RE: Inbox Event Reminder: you are invited to the SPF BOF June 3rd at Marriott San Jose 6:30-8:00pm, Michel Py, 11:47
- RE: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, Graham Wager, 11:39
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Guillaume Filion, 11:37
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Lars B. Dybdahl, 11:30
- Re: the problem of regime change, David Brodbeck, 11:25
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), wayne, 11:12
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, James Couzens, 11:07
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, James Couzens, 11:02
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, wayne, 11:01
- RE: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Brad Glore, 10:52
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), Peter Bowyer, 10:49
- Re: the problem of regime change, Koen Martens, 10:48
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:46
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), spf, 10:38
- Re: the problem of regime change, Guillaume Filion, 10:32
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Lars B. Dybdahl, 10:30
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Guillaume Filion, 10:19
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), Peter Bowyer, 10:12
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Jeremy T. Bouse, 09:34
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:31
- Re: Re[2]: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Greg Connor, 09:21
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), David Brodbeck, 09:04
- Re: the problem of regime change, Lars B. Dybdahl, 08:50
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), David Brodbeck, 08:15
- Re: the problem of regime change, David Brodbeck, 08:02
- Re: the problem of regime change, Jon Kyme, 07:40
- rationale document, Meng Weng Wong, 07:24
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), Daniel Taylor, 07:18
- Re: the problem of regime change, Daniel Taylor, 06:54
- Re[2]: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, Chris Drake, 06:51
- Re: Re[2]: RCPT TO: rejecting (OT), David Brodbeck, 06:50
- Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once), Guillaume Filion, 06:44
- Re: Microsoft IIS and Exchange Support, David Brodbeck, 05:59
- Re: XML unification proposal, william(at)elan.net, 05:08
- Re: XML unification proposal, Roger Moser, 02:40
- Re: XML unification proposal, Alain Knaff, 02:39
- Re: XML!! Lets bang square peg into round hole!!, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 00:26
- Re: XML unification proposal, Greg Connor, 00:10