SPF Discuss (date)
July 31, 2004
- RE: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 20:01
- RE: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 19:58
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 19:41
- Case Sensitivity, Roger Moser, 14:16
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, Robert Storey, 12:04
- Re: Multiple txt records?, Koen Martens, 11:32
- Multiple txt records?, Dan Durrer, 10:43
- RE: Case Sensitivity, Scott Kitterman, 10:16
- Re: Re: Case Sensitivity, marc, 09:47
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Chris Haynes, 09:26
- Case Sensitivity, marc, 09:06
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Xavier Beaudouin, 04:43
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Koen Martens, 04:02
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 03:54
- mail administrator certification example, Roger Moser, 00:28
July 30, 2004
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Stuart D. Gathman, 23:15
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Stuart D. Gathman, 23:01
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:43
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 20:22
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, David Brodbeck, 19:49
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 18:40
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 18:34
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 18:33
- Distrowatch article on SPF, Robert Storey, 18:32
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Greg Connor, 16:45
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, James Couzens, 15:51
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 14:22
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 14:14
- Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Roger Moser, 13:01
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Tim Kennedy, 12:19
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Ernesto Baschny, 12:19
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 11:36
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 11:32
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Greg Connor, 11:23
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Alan Hodgson, 11:22
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Greg Connor, 11:20
- RE: Distrowatch article on SPF, John Glube, 11:17
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 11:14
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 11:12
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 10:58
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:41
- Re: mail administrator certification example, David Brodbeck, 10:37
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, Guillaume Filion, 10:32
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 10:27
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 10:25
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Mark, 10:23
- Re: mail administrator certification example, David Brodbeck, 10:21
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Michel Bouissou, 10:21
- Re: mail administrator certification example, David Brodbeck, 10:19
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 10:15
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 10:13
- Re: mail administrator certification example, David Brodbeck, 10:13
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Ernesto Baschny, 10:12
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Ernesto Baschny, 10:07
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 10:05
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 10:04
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 09:54
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 09:49
- Re: mail administrator certification example, David Brodbeck, 09:47
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Mark, 09:27
- Re: mail administrator certification example, wayne, 09:15
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Roger B.A. Klorese, 09:06
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Roger B.A. Klorese, 09:03
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 09:03
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 09:03
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:00
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Roger B.A. Klorese, 08:58
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 08:57
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Roger B.A. Klorese, 08:55
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 08:49
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, Richard Parker, 08:47
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Roger B.A. Klorese, 08:33
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:33
- Re: mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 08:28
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:26
- RE: Distrowatch article on SPF, Scott Kitterman, 07:50
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 07:43
- Re: mail administrator certification example, Paul Howarth, 07:39
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 07:38
- mail administrator certification example, John Keown, 07:21
- RE:, Shoaib, 06:28
- Re:, wayne, 05:01
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Shevek, 04:53
- Re: Re: Military, Koen Martens, 01:58
July 29, 2004
- (unknown), Shoaib, 22:49
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Greg Wooledge, 17:19
- RE: Error 0x80070103 - 0x0 while excluding recipients from a message rejection, Postmaster, 10:28
- Re: Re: Military, Ralf Doeblitz, 10:08
- Error 0x80070103 - 0x0 while excluding recipients from a message rejection, Jupiter(_at_)PlanetJup, 10:07
- Re: Re: Military, Ralf Doeblitz, 10:06
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, wayne, 06:33
- RE: Need to promote process changes, terry, 05:53
- Re: Need to promote process changes, Mark Shewmaker, 05:38
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Rob McMahon, 04:13
- Need to promote process changes, Chris Haynes, 02:21
- Re: ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, James Couzens, 00:39
July 28, 2004
- Re: Error 0x80070103 - 0x0 while excluding recipients from a message rejection, Koen Martens, 23:27
- RE: Error 0x80070103 - 0x0 while excluding recipients from a message rejection, Michael R. Brumm, 21:08
- Re: Re: Military, Greg Wooledge, 18:29
- Re: ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, Michel Bouissou, 15:58
- Re: ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, Richard Parker, 15:04
- Re: ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, James Couzens, 14:46
- Error 0x80070103 - 0x0 while excluding recipients from a message rejection, Postmaster, 14:44
- Re: ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, Meng Weng Wong, 14:37
- ANNOUNCE: spf.infinitepenguins.net / spfTools.net site update, James Couzens, 13:08
- Re: Re: Military, Meng Weng Wong, 12:40
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Koen Martens, 11:56
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 11:52
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, John Keown, 11:51
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Roger B.A. Klorese, 11:49
- Re: Re: Military, David Brodbeck, 11:48
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, David Brodbeck, 11:43
- Re: Re: Military, Alan Hodgson, 10:38
- Re: Re: Military, Daniel Taylor, 10:37
- Re: Re: Military, Roger B.A. Klorese, 10:27
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 10:02
- Re: Re: Military, Alan Hodgson, 09:56
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Lloyd Zusman, 09:51
- RE: Re: Military, Vivien M., 09:46
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 09:25
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Thomas Harold, 09:23
- Re: Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 09:18
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Lloyd Zusman, 09:13
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Koen Martens, 09:01
- sender authentication vs smtp authentication, Meng Weng Wong, 09:00
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Thomas Harold, 08:59
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:43
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 08:43
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, John Keown, 08:15
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, David Brodbeck, 08:10
- Re: Re: Military, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 07:59
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 07:59
- Re: [MAILER-DAEMON: Postmaster notify: see transcript for details], rogerk, 07:57
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 07:57
- [MAILER-DAEMON: Postmaster notify: see transcript for details], Koen Martens, 07:54
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 07:45
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 07:38
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 07:38
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, David Sowder, 07:37
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 07:34
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 07:34
- Re: Re: Military, Michel Bouissou, 07:29
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 07:29
- Re: Re: Military, Paul Ficinski, 07:28
- Re: Re: Military, Koen Martens, 07:26
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:16
- Re: Re: Military, Shevek, 07:01
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 06:59
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 06:58
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 06:53
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Koen Martens, 06:51
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 06:50
- Re: Re: Military, Koen Martens, 06:49
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Daniel Taylor, 06:49
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 06:49
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, John Keown, 06:48
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 06:48
- Re: Re: Military, David Brodbeck, 06:43
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, David Brodbeck, 06:41
- Re: Re: Military, Koen Martens, 06:40
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 06:38
- Re: Re: Military, wayne, 06:36
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, wayne, 06:31
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Paul Howarth, 06:31
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, Koen Martens, 06:30
- Re: Re: Military, rogerk, 06:27
- Re: Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, rogerk, 06:25
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 06:22
- Overly broad ip range in spf - think like a spammer, John Keown, 06:19
- Re: Re: Military, wayne, 06:13
- Re: Re: Military, David Brodbeck, 06:03
- Re: Re: Military, David Brodbeck, 05:59
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 05:52
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 05:44
- Re: Re: Military, Paul Howarth, 05:44
- Re: Military, Ernesto Baschny, 05:42
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 05:29
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 05:25
- Re: Re: Military, Paul Howarth, 05:22
- Re: Re: Military, Chip Mefford, 05:16
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 05:01
- Re: Re: Military, Roger B.A. Klorese, 04:52
- Re: Re: Military, Arjen de Korte, 04:46
- Re: Re: Military, John Keown, 04:04
- Re: Re: Military, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:07
- Re: Re: Military, Paul Howarth, 01:42
- Re: Military, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:37
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Ian, 00:03
July 27, 2004
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Roger B.A. Klorese, 23:05
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Josep M., 22:56
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Frank Ellermann, 22:09
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., wayne, 19:21
- Re: Why has [somebody] [alledgedly] stolen [somebody's] domain?, James Couzens, 17:18
- Re: Why has [somebody] [alledgedly] stolen [somebody's] domain?, Greg Wooledge, 16:32
- Mailtraq SPF beta, Jim Hill, 16:28
- Re: CHALLENGE: a list of 100 Good Domains, Meng Weng Wong, 15:23
- CHALLENGE: a list of 100 Good Domains, Meng Weng Wong, 15:13
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Josep M., 14:49
- List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Josep M., 14:18
- Re: List of Registrars that support TXT in DNS., Koen Martens, 14:16
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Koen Martens, 14:15
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Josep M., 14:12
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Koen Martens, 14:06
- RE: Re: [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, James Couzens, 14:05
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, James Couzens, 13:58
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 13:56
- Re: Re: [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, James Couzens, 13:56
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, Ryan Malayter, 13:52
- Re: Re: [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, James Couzens, 13:50
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Koen Martens, 13:46
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, Thomas Harold, 13:00
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Thomas Harold, 12:50
- RE: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Seth Goodman, 12:49
- Re: Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:42
- Envelope Sender X From Header. How are you treating this?, Rodrigo F Afonso, 10:42
- Re: Military, Meng Weng Wong, 10:41
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Josep M., 10:33
- RE: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Josep M., 10:25
- RE: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Josep M., 10:20
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow addSPF into DNS?, Josep M., 10:17
- Re: Military, wayne, 09:04
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Mark Jeftovic, 09:04
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 08:59
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Arjen de Korte, 08:57
- RE: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, terry, 08:00
- RE: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Scott Kitterman, 07:46
- RE: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Scott Kitterman, 07:46
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Meng Weng Wong, 07:36
- Re: List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, David Brodbeck, 07:32
- List of Domain Names Registrars that allow add SPF into DNS?, Josep M., 07:28
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Meng Weng Wong, 06:22
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Paul Howarth, 05:05
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 04:55
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Ernesto Baschny, 03:45
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 03:28
- Re: Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Roger Moser, 00:28
July 26, 2004
- Re: Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 23:00
- Re: Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, Ben Damm, 22:24
- Re: [spf-devel] [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2, wayne, 21:59
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Meng Weng Wong, 21:47
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 18:40
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Greg Wooledge, 15:50
- Re: Why has [somebody] [alledgedly] stolen [somebody's] domain?, Michel Bouissou, 15:45
- Re: Why has [somebody] [alledgedly] stolen [somebody's] domain?, Michel Bouissou, 15:37
- Re: Sendmail releases benchmarking results for DomainKeys by Yahoo!, Meng Weng Wong, 15:34
- Re: The future of spf.infinitepenguins.net, Michel Bouissou, 15:28
- Re: Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, Greg Connor, 15:18
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 12:46
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 12:42
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Alan Hodgson, 12:24
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Chuck Mead, 11:14
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Richard Parker, 10:53
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Ryan Malayter, 10:01
- best guess, Philip Tucker, 09:07
- Military, G E Scott Knauss, 05:55
- Re: Re:Support for Internationalized Explanations, Roger Moser, 05:44
- Re: Re:Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 05:17
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 05:14
- Re:Support for Internationalized Explanations, Roger Moser, 05:11
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 04:50
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Frank Ellermann, 04:29
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Frank Ellermann, 03:56
- Re:Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 03:47
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Jan Wildeboer, 02:58
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 02:57
- Re: ANNOUNCE: libspf v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 2, Shevek, 02:52
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:50
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 02:39
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Koen Martens, 01:47
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Koen Martens, 01:43
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 01:35
- Re: The future of spf.infinitepenguins.net, James Couzens, 01:02
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Roger Moser, 00:42
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 00:39
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Graham Murray, 00:30
July 25, 2004
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, william(at)elan.net, 23:47
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 07/26/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:28
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Frank Ellermann, 17:08
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Frank Ellermann, 16:47
- Re: Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Michel Bouissou, 16:00
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Frank Ellermann, 15:54
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 15:52
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 15:45
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 15:37
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 15:33
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 15:30
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Ernesto Baschny, 15:27
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 15:27
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 15:19
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 14:57
- Re: Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 14:54
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Michel Bouissou, 14:46
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Paul Iadonisi, 14:20
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Frank Ellermann, 14:19
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, David Brodbeck, 14:16
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Paul Iadonisi, 14:11
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Koen Martens, 13:47
- Re: The future of spf.infinitepenguins.net, Koen Martens, 13:37
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:22
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Meng Weng Wong, 12:16
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 12:14
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Graham Murray, 11:37
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Michel Bouissou, 11:26
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Ernesto Baschny, 11:14
- Re: Support for Internationalized Explanations, Roger Moser, 10:47
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:41
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Chuck Mead, 09:52
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, william(at)elan.net, 09:49
- RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09:27
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Chuck Mead, 08:56
- Re: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Meng Weng Wong, 08:12
- spfTools.net; A Call for all SPF related tools, James Couzens, 07:44
- The future of spf.infinitepenguins.net, James Couzens, 07:42
- Support for Internationalized Explanations, Chris Haynes, 06:57
July 24, 2004
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 17:43
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 17:37
- RE: [SPF] What to do in Windows 2003 and a .local domain DNS, Michael R. Brumm, 15:07
- Re: Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, James Couzens, 14:04
- Re: Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, James Couzens, 13:58
- Fwd: Sender-ID and free software, Michel Bouissou, 12:58
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, frank, 11:23
- RE: [SPF] What to do in Windows 2003 and a .local domain DNS, Dwain Hutten, 11:14
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 09:04
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 08:59
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 08:54
- Re: [SPF] What to do in Windows 2003 and a .local domain DNS, Koen Martens, 08:51
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 08:51
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Meng Weng Wong, 08:46
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Arjen de Korte, 08:36
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Graham Murray, 08:32
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 07:57
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 07:56
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 07:52
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 07:48
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 07:37
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 07:30
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 07:26
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 07:22
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 07:16
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 07:08
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, terry, 07:06
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 07:03
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 06:54
- Re: Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 06:53
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, A.G. Russell IV, 06:47
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 06:46
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 06:42
- Re: Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, Marc Kool, 06:29
- [SPF] What to do in Windows 2003 and a .local domain DNS, Dwain Hutten, 06:26
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, A.G. Russell IV, 06:17
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, A.G. Russell IV, 06:07
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, terry, 05:51
- Why has Wayne stolen my domain?, James Couzens, 05:02
- Imail SPF filter, Oscar Ssentoogo, 04:33
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 04:15
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, James Couzens, 04:04
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, James Couzens, 04:02
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, Ralf Doeblitz, 00:06
July 23, 2004
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Glube, 18:57
- Re: Moderate or die?, Meng Weng Wong, 18:50
- Moderate or die?, Chris Drake, 17:56
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Meng Weng Wong, 17:52
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, Gilbert, Joseph, 17:47
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, Gilbert, Joseph, 17:45
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, Koen Martens, 17:29
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, Michel Bouissou, 17:26
- RE: Is SPF all that useful?, Gilbert, Joseph, 17:16
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Roger B.A. Klorese , 17:03
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Jonathan Gardner, 17:02
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, Koen Martens, 17:02
- Re: Is SPF all that useful?, Michel Bouissou, 16:58
- Is SPF all that useful?, Gilbert, Joseph, 16:44
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Mark C. Langston, 15:58
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Mark C. Langston, 15:57
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Koen Martens, 15:51
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:49
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 15:35
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Len Conrad, 15:30
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 15:14
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Ryan Malayter, 15:14
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Len Conrad, 15:09
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 15:03
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 15:01
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 14:57
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 14:48
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, James Couzens, 14:40
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 14:32
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 14:28
- RE: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Ryan Malayter, 14:19
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:59
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 13:36
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:27
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 13:26
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 13:21
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:07
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 13:06
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 13:01
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Ficinski, 12:58
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 12:54
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 12:42
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 12:25
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 12:21
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Justin Mason, 12:16
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 12:14
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Mark C. Langston, 12:11
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 12:05
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 12:03
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 11:59
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 11:58
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 11:52
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 11:50
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, David Brodbeck, 11:48
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, David Brodbeck, 11:45
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 11:44
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 11:34
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 11:24
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 11:15
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 10:52
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, John Keown, 10:50
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:47
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:34
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:32
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 10:31
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF and Responsibility, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:29
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:28
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:22
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 10:18
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 10:17
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 10:14
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:11
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Daniel Taylor, 10:01
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, John Glube, 09:58
- Infoworld article on Microsoft enforcing SenderID, systhine, 09:48
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Paul Howarth, 09:48
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Jonathan Gardner, 09:46
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 09:37
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Thomas Harold, 08:49
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Lloyd Zusman, 07:56
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:43
July 22, 2004
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 21:12
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Meng Weng Wong, 21:02
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 21:00
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Roger B.A. Klorese , 20:57
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:15
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:12
- Re: Digest 1.389 for spf-discuss, Meng Weng Wong, 19:20
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Meng Weng Wong, 19:18
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Len Conrad, 18:33
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 18:26
- Re: URGENTish please respond., Boyd Lynn Gerber, 18:21
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 18:06
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 17:58
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 17:09
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 17:05
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Greg Wooledge, 16:33
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 16:20
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jef Poskanzer, 16:03
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Michel Bouissou, 15:49
- Re: *****SPAM***** SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:39
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Greg Wooledge, 14:45
- URGENTish please respond., Jesse Gordon, 14:38
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 14:32
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Chris Haynes, 14:19
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 14:17
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, John Keown, 14:14
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Sowder, 13:59
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:59
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 13:59
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 13:51
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:46
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:40
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 13:36
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 13:17
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 13:16
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 13:14
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 13:01
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 12:48
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 12:42
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 12:37
- ANNOUNCE: libSPF v1.0 RELEASE CANDIDATE 4, James Couzens, 12:34
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 12:23
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 12:12
- RE: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, terry, 12:10
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 11:55
- Re: SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Dotzero, 11:52
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:38
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Sowder, 11:36
- SPF will solve spam and punish spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 11:36
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF and Responsibility, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:34
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 11:34
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 11:14
- Re: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, B Damm, 10:24
- Re: Digest 1.389 for spf-discuss, Jesse Gordon, 09:59
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:27
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 08:52
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF and Responsibility, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:41
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:40
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 08:35
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 08:20
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 08:17
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Paul Ficinski, 08:09
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 07:55
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 07:49
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 07:40
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 07:23
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 07:09
- Re: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, Michel Bouissou, 07:00
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 06:52
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 06:41
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 05:46
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Daniel Taylor, 05:16
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 04:39
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 03:50
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 03:13
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 02:31
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Beveridge, 01:05
July 21, 2004
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Graham Murray, 22:50
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 20:38
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 20:19
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, David Brodbeck, 19:49
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 19:41
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Beveridge, 19:31
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 18:33
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:38
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 17:28
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Len Conrad, 17:24
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 17:20
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 17:17
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Roger B.A. Klorese , 17:10
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 17:06
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Len Conrad, 17:04
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 16:58
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Roger B.A. Klorese , 16:43
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 16:41
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 16:33
- Re: Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, Roger B.A. Klorese , 16:16
- Is SPF serving the best interests of the end-user?, spf, 16:11
- Re: *****SPAM***** IMPORTANT: The main point Nico and Co. are trying to make, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:17
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Beveridge, 15:02
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:48
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 14:33
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Graham Murray, 14:32
- Re: [O.T] [Was: SPF and Responsibility], Michel Bouissou, 14:23
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 14:20
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 14:07
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 14:05
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 14:00
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 13:56
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:54
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jef Poskanzer, 13:48
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 13:42
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:41
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:29
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, David Brodbeck, 13:26
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:23
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 13:19
- Re: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, wayne, 13:16
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 13:15
- Re: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, wayne, 13:02
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 13:00
- Re: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, Michel Bouissou, 12:59
- Re: MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:47
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 12:44
- RE: Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, Ryan Malayter, 12:43
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 12:35
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 12:30
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 12:28
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Mark Shewmaker, 12:27
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, mhammer, 12:11
- Broken SPF implementations among this list's subscribers ?, Michel Bouissou, 12:10
- RE: SPF and Responsibility, terry, 11:52
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 11:48
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 11:13
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Daniel Taylor, 11:10
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Michel Bouissou, 10:48
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 10:17
- Re: MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Murthy Gorty, 09:51
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Paul Howarth, 02:39
July 20, 2004
- Re: MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 22:55
- Re: MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Roger Moser, 14:36
- Re: MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:22
- IMPORTANT: The main point Nico and Co. are trying to make, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:13
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Roger B.A. Klorese , 14:11
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Len Conrad, 13:49
- MX -> TXT SPF widlcard records, Murthy Gorty, 13:40
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Roger B.A. Klorese , 13:34
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Roger Moser, 13:28
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 13:09
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 11:02
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Stuart D. Gathman, 10:55
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:49
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 09:18
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:02
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, David Brodbeck, 07:28
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, David Brodbeck, 07:25
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, David Brodbeck, 07:16
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., David Brodbeck, 06:42
- Re: SPF and Responsibility, Paul Howarth, 02:45
July 19, 2004
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:53
- Licensing Issue, John Glube, 13:46
- SPF and Responsibility, Jonathan Gardner, 13:26
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 13:07
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usableaslegal measure against spammers.), Stuart D. Gathman, 09:11
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:04
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Graham Murray, 08:36
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Len Conrad, 08:09
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Paul Howarth, 08:02
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Jason Gurtz, 07:52
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usableaslegal measure against spammers.), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 07:48
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF, administrator, 07:23
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, william(at)elan.net, 05:32
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Roger Moser, 05:28
- Re: Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Len Conrad, 05:12
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF, Roger Moser, 04:28
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Michel Bouissou, 02:55
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 02:47
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Koen Martens, 02:24
July 18, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 07/19/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usableaslegal measure against spammers.), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 19:46
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Paul Howarth, 16:20
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Roger Moser, 15:32
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:19
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:05
July 17, 2004
- Re: Difference between "softfail" and "neutral", Hector Santos, 19:57
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Roger Moser, 14:09
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Lloyd Zusman, 13:06
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Roger Moser, 12:02
- Re: Difference between "softfail" and "neutral", Roger Moser, 11:38
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Paul Howarth, 10:05
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, administrator, 08:05
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.), Roger Moser, 07:50
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 06:42
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.), Roger Moser, 06:02
- Re: PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.), Paul Howarth, 05:41
- PTR lookups in SPF (was: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 05:31
- Difference between "softfail" and "neutral", Arjen de Korte, 05:20
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Len Conrad, 04:59
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Koen Martens, 04:37
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, Roger Moser, 00:35
July 16, 2004
- Re: new user, Jeffrey Goldberg, 19:51
- Re: some more about my new install, Koen Martens, 16:02
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 15:18
- Re: Paul Graham on new languages, Tim Meadowcroft, 14:58
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 14:56
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers, administrator, 14:55
- some more about my new install, cak+spf, 13:31
- Re: spf-discuss record changing to -all, Meng Weng Wong, 13:09
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 12:35
- Re: I Invoke Godwin's law on GMail soap opera scripts, Jonathan Gardner, 12:29
- Re: My last IETF Post, Jonathan Gardner, 12:18
- Re: new user, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 12:15
- RE: My last IETF Post, John Glube, 12:07
- Re: My last IETF Post, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 11:55
- RE: new user, terry, 11:40
- new user, cak+spf, 11:32
- Re: My last IETF Post, Jonathan Gardner, 11:06
- Re: Paul Graham on new languages, Jonathan Gardner, 10:55
- Re: fair chance?, Jonathan Gardner, 10:52
- Re: My last IETF Post, Chuck Mead, 09:49
- Re: My last IETF Post, wayne, 09:43
- Re: My last IETF Post, Chuck Mead, 09:32
- My last IETF Post, Chuck Mead, 08:36
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 08:24
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 07:53
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Graham Murray, 07:32
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., administrator, 07:26
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Mark Hardee, 06:31
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable aslegal measure against spammers.], Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 05:14
- Re: fair chance?, Koen Martens, 03:33
- Re: fair chance?, Michel Bouissou, 02:45
- Re: fair chance?, Koen Martens, 02:35
- Alias/Real Email Accounts [Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.]], Hector Santos, 02:34
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Matt Burleigh, 01:23
- Re: Paul Graham on new languages, david nicol, 00:38
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], david nicol, 00:21
July 15, 2004
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Hector Santos, 23:31
- Re: protocol-00 issues, Frank Ellermann, 20:13
- If SPF is not final solution - What will you see during SPF -> next technology transition?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 20:10
- Re: Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Waitman Gobble, 19:59
- Re: protocol-00 issues, Mark Lentczner, 19:53
- Re: Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Michael Weiner, 19:29
- protocol-00 issues (was: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail), Frank Ellermann, 19:14
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Matt Burleigh, 19:12
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Hector Santos, 18:40
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Hector Santos, 18:37
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Matt Burleigh, 18:25
- Re: "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 17:32
- "Stripping Wars!" [Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers.], Hector Santos, 16:47
- Re: fair chance?, wayne, 15:28
- RE: MX secondary problem?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:55
- Re: Citibank, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:46
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Stuart D. Gathman, 14:29
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 14:23
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Chuck Mead, 11:37
- Re: fair chance?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:27
- Re: Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Waitman C Gobble II, 11:22
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Jonathan Gardner, 11:22
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 11:18
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 11:09
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 11:06
- Re: SPF TXT to English?, Paul Bissex, 09:48
- RE: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Seth Goodman, 09:13
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Meng Weng Wong, 09:05
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Meng Weng Wong, 09:03
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Waitman C Gobble II, 06:58
- Re: Intuit, Waitman C Gobble II, 06:53
- SPF TXT Records resulting in attack warnings, Tim Kennedy, 06:51
- Re: SPF TXT to English?, Koen Martens, 02:48
- Re: MX secondary problem?, Ralf Doeblitz, 02:13
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Ralf Doeblitz, 01:49
- Re: Intuit, dr . midgley, 01:15
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 01:10
- Re: Citibank, Koen Martens, 00:48
- Re: Citibank, Koen Martens, 00:46
- RE: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Seth Goodman, 00:10
July 14, 2004
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, wayne, 23:34
- Re[2]: Citibank, Chris Drake, 23:05
- sender_agents modifier, Mark Shewmaker, 22:06
- Re: SPF TXT to English?, Paul Bissex, 20:16
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 19:38
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 18:54
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 18:33
- Re: Citibank, David Brodbeck, 18:25
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 18:21
- RE: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, John Glube, 17:50
- Re: Citibank, Meng Weng Wong, 17:31
- Re: Citibank, Meng Weng Wong, 17:29
- Paul Graham on new languages, mengwong, 17:10
- Re[2]: Citibank, Chris Drake, 16:55
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Mark Lentczner, 16:48
- RE: MX secondary problem?, Ryan Malayter, 16:09
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Chuck Mead, 15:15
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Mark Lentczner, 14:59
- Re: fair chance?, Chuck Mead, 14:49
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Chuck Mead, 14:45
- fair chance?, Marc Kool, 13:48
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Michel Bouissou, 13:42
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Waitman C Gobble II, 13:24
- Re: anti-phishing, Michel Bouissou, 13:22
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Chuck Mead, 13:18
- Re: Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Michel Bouissou, 13:14
- Re: Sender ID algorithm in a nutshell, Michel Bouissou, 13:12
- Re: SPF TXT to English?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:35
- anti-phishing, Meng Weng Wong, 12:24
- Microsoft & Sender ID - SPF confusion as of mid July 2004, Holm, Mark, 11:57
- Re: *****SPAM***** Citibank, Graham Murray, 11:42
- RE: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Seth Goodman, 11:23
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:51
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:48
- Re: *****SPAM***** Citibank, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:46
- Re: Citibank, Meng Weng Wong, 10:19
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Meng Weng Wong, 10:09
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., John Keown, 09:57
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 09:55
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 09:50
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., John Keown, 09:48
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 09:42
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 09:35
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 09:35
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., John Keown, 09:27
- Re: Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:23
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Paul Howarth, 09:09
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Chuck Mead, 09:08
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 09:01
- Re: Citibank, Whil Hentzen, 08:55
- Citibank, Bourque Daniel, 08:13
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:09
- AOL & ".vacation" forwarding ?, Chris Drake, 08:08
- Re: MX secondary problem?, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:22
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, wayne, 06:40
- Re: MX secondary problem?, wayne, 06:31
- SPF TXT to English?, Paul Bissex, 06:29
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Koen Martens, 03:00
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, spf, 02:56
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Koen Martens, 02:54
July 13, 2004
- Re: MX secondary problem?, Koen Martens, 23:38
- RE: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers. DomainKeys are probably yes. Routers hacked by spammers scenario., John Glube, 23:23
- Re: MX secondary problem?, Mark Lentczner, 22:55
- Re: MX secondary problem?, Mark Lentczner, 22:30
- Re: Sender ID algorithm in a nutshell, Meng Weng Wong, 20:41
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Meng Weng Wong, 20:37
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers. DomainKeys are probably yes. Routers hacked by spammers scenario., Andrew G. Tereschenko, 19:43
- Re[2]: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Chris Drake, 19:26
- licensing problems with SenderID MUST be discussed on MARID, wayne, 19:25
- RE: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers. DomainKeys are probably yes. Routers hacked by spammers scenario., John Glube, 18:53
- RE: MX secondary problem?, Ryan Malayter, 18:41
- MX secondary problem?, Dennis Carr, 18:35
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Andrew G. Tereschenko, 18:18
- Re: Sender ID algorithm in a nutshell, Weldon Whipple, 18:12
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Meng Weng Wong, 18:10
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 17:23
- Re: new SPF email checker utility, Frank Ellermann, 17:10
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Frank Ellermann, 17:02
- Re: Sender ID algorithm in a nutshell, Michel Bouissou, 16:51
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Michel Bouissou, 16:49
- Re: SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers., Jonathan Gardner, 16:40
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:25
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 15:49
- RE: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Seth Goodman, 15:09
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, wayne, 14:35
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:29
- SPF is not usable as legal measure against spammers. DomainKeys are probably yes. Routers hacked by spammers scenario., Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:19
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:12
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Mark Lentczner, 14:01
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Jonathan Gardner, 13:58
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Jonathan Gardner, 13:52
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, David Brodbeck, 13:48
- Sender ID algorithm in a nutshell, Meng Weng Wong, 13:47
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Koen Martens, 13:44
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Koen Martens, 13:39
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 13:29
- Re: Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 13:02
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 10:11
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Jonathan Gardner, 10:04
- Re: Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:44
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:38
- Re: Mixed Poliices [Re: spf-discuss record changing to -all], Meng Weng Wong, 08:26
- Re: ISP eavesdropping on mail: UK [was ....], Adrian Midgley, 08:18
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Michel Bouissou, 07:26
- Re: spf-discuss record changing to -all, David Woodhouse, 03:17
- Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Lloyd Zusman, 02:26
- Mixed Poliices [Re: spf-discuss record changing to -all], Hector Santos, 01:58
July 12, 2004
- RE: Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, John Glube, 22:07
- new SPF email checker utility, Chris Drake, 21:47
- Re: Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, wayne, 21:27
- Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, wayne, 20:45
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Frank Ellermann, 20:31
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Frank Ellermann, 20:13
- RE: Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, John Glube, 19:09
- Re: Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, wayne, 18:25
- Re: Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, wayne, 17:58
- spf-discuss record changing to -all, Meng Weng Wong, 16:58
- Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Lloyd Zusman, 16:01
- Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Meng Weng Wong, 15:36
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:54
- Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Justin Mason, 14:28
- Re: Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, wayne, 14:24
- Re: Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Roger Moser, 14:20
- To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate, Mark Lentczner, 14:18
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Frank Ellermann, 13:46
- Re: Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Re: Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Roger Moser, 13:25
- Are SPF fault tolerant ? How to make SPF records changed correctly ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 13:06
- Re: Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Meng Weng Wong, 12:52
- RE: ITU "spam" summit concludes in Geneva, John Glube, 12:06
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Frank Ellermann, 11:50
- Re: Intuit, Waitman C Gobble II, 11:29
- Re: Intuit, Meng Weng Wong, 11:24
- Re: Intuit, Waitman C Gobble II, 11:02
- Re: ITU "spam" summit concludes in Geneva, Meng Weng Wong, 10:56
- Re: ITU "spam" summit concludes in Geneva, Mark C. Langston, 10:51
- Re: Intuit, Meng Weng Wong, 10:49
- Re: Intuit, Waitman C Gobble II, 10:10
- Re: Intuit, Meng Weng Wong, 10:00
- Intuit, Waitman C Gobble II, 09:26
- ITU "spam" summit concludes in Geneva, Meng Weng Wong, 09:14
- RE: Creaky old logo, Michel Py, 08:51
- Re: Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 06:32
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:56
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:53
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Hector Santos, 00:46
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Hector Santos, 00:35
July 11, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 07/12/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:34
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Jim Paris, 23:20
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 22:52
- Re: spf command-line query utility?, wayne, 20:23
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, wayne, 18:00
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Carl Hutzler, 17:48
- Re[4]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Chris Drake, 16:23
- Re: Dealing with "legitimate" forgers, Chris Drake, 16:10
- Re: Additional security considerations, wayne, 16:09
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Greg Connor, 15:24
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 15:12
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, David Brodbeck, 14:51
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, David Brodbeck, 14:49
- Re: "redirect" in an included SPF record, Meng Weng Wong, 14:46
- Re: Additional security considerations, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:24
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:00
- Re: Additional security considerations, wayne, 13:34
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Frank Ellermann, 13:15
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 13:06
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, James Couzens, 12:14
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Hector Santos, 12:13
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 12:04
- "redirect" in an included SPF record, Roger Moser, 11:54
- Re: Shortcuts to current mechanisms defined in RFC ?, Frank Ellermann, 11:36
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, David Brodbeck, 11:03
- Curious to what applications your using for SPF, michael, 10:50
- Re: Additional security considerations, Jim Paris, 10:30
- Dealing with "legitimate" forgers, Jeffrey Goldberg, 10:11
- Re: Shortcuts to current mechanisms defined in RFC ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 10:05
- Re: Additional security considerations, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 09:57
- Re: Re[2]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 09:33
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Michael Weiner, 09:12
- Re: spf command-line query utility?, Paul Howarth, 09:12
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 09:11
- Re: spf command-line query utility?, Michael Weiner, 09:08
- spf command-line query utility?, Nick Bartos, 09:04
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, James Couzens, 08:35
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Graham Murray, 08:32
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Michael Weiner, 08:23
- Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Len Conrad, 08:12
- Re: Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 08:09
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Koen Martens, 07:54
- Re[2]: Greeting Card sites catching on, Chris Drake, 07:30
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Michael Weiner, 07:28
- Re[2]: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Chris Drake, 07:22
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Koen Martens, 07:17
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 04:38
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 04:29
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Koen Martens, 04:21
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Graham Murray, 04:15
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 04:13
- SPF news from Russia., Serge Orlov, 03:27
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Chris Drake, 02:45
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Koen Martens, 01:57
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Koen Martens, 01:10
- Re: Additional security considerations, Meng Weng Wong, 00:10
July 10, 2004
- Re: Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:58
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Mark Shewmaker, 16:48
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 16:24
- Is there is proposed checks on bounces and delivery notification ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 16:09
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Mark Shewmaker, 16:04
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 15:22
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Mark Shewmaker, 14:47
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:44
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 14:18
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Mark Shewmaker, 13:53
- Additional security considerations, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 12:51
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Len Conrad, 12:41
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 12:00
- Re: Greeting Card sites catching on, Meng Weng Wong, 11:09
- Greeting Card sites catching on, James Couzens, 10:10
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 08:45
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Meng Weng Wong, 08:28
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 06:08
July 09, 2004
- Creaky old logo, Chris Drake, 20:00
- Re: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 18:16
- Re: OT: Change of address, Meng Weng Wong, 18:02
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 17:46
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Mark Shewmaker, 16:24
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Ryan Malayter, 15:55
- Re: OT: Change of address, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 15:25
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 13:43
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 12:58
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 12:56
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 12:13
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:31
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Frank Ellermann, 04:44
- Re: who will use scopes?, Roger Moser, 03:25
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, Roger Moser, 02:01
- Re: who will use scopes?, Frank Ellermann, 01:52
July 08, 2004
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, wayne, 21:00
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, wayne, 20:21
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, James Couzens, 20:13
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, wayne, 20:08
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, wayne, 19:52
- Re: who will use scopes?, wayne, 19:42
- Shortcuts to current mechanisms defined in RFC ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 19:27
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, william(at)elan.net, 18:39
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, Michael Weiner, 18:26
- RE: What else to go into the pot?, Scott Kitterman, 18:21
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, Greg Wooledge, 18:17
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, David Lawless, 17:02
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:52
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Len Conrad, 16:15
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 16:12
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 15:57
- RE: What else to go into the pot?, Gary Levell, 15:31
- RE: What else to go into the pot?, Gary Levell, 15:05
- Re: who will use scopes?, Mark Lentczner, 15:02
- RE: who will use scopes?, Seth Goodman, 15:02
- RE: who will use scopes?, Gary Levell, 14:51
- Re: is there even a need for funding?, Chris Miller, 13:45
- is there even a need for funding?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 13:21
- Re: who will use scopes?, Mark Lentczner, 13:20
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Roger Moser, 12:55
- Re: who will use scopes?, Roger Moser, 12:34
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Roger Moser, 12:25
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 10:19
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, wayne, 09:49
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Tony Finch, 09:38
- Re: Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:07
- who will use scopes?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:03
- Why TXT zone record location for SPF and Sender ID data are domain default ( @ TXT "data") ?, Andrew G. Tereschenko, 08:47
- Re: OT: Change of address, Jason Gurtz, 07:51
- Re: OT: Change of address, Koen Martens, 07:24
- RE: OT: Change of address, Seth Goodman, 07:15
- RE: What else to go into the pot?, Seth Goodman, 07:01
- Re: OT: Change of address, spf, 06:54
- RE: What else to go into the pot?, Gary Levell, 06:28
- RE: OT: Change of address, Seth Goodman, 06:07
July 07, 2004
- Re: What else to go into the pot?, Roger Moser, 23:56
- Re: OT: Change of address, Gregg R . Allen, 22:00
- What else to go into the pot?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:56
- SenderID checking of PRA falling back to Mail-From, Meng Weng Wong, 16:45
- Re: OT: Change of address, Chris Haynes, 12:24
- OT: Change of address, Paul Iadonisi, 11:43
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, James Couzens, 08:37
- RE: Dynamic IP & MTAMARK=No - why accept them?, Seth Goodman, 07:58
- RE: Dynamic IP & MTAMARK=No - why accept them?, Seth Goodman, 07:43
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:16
- RE: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Seth Goodman, 07:03
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 06:51
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Hector Santos, 02:51
July 06, 2004
- Re: Dynamic IP & MTAMARK=No - why accept them?, Chris Drake, 23:57
- Re: Dynamic IP & MTAMARK=No - why accept them?, william(at)elan.net, 23:03
- Dynamic IP & MTAMARK=No - why accept them?, Karl Prince, 15:47
- Re: SPF record interpretation question, Frank Ellermann, 15:11
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Frank Ellermann, 14:08
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 12:50
- Re: Re: SPF record interpretation question, Meng Weng Wong, 12:42
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 12:17
- RE: Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 12:00
- Re: SPF record interpretation question, Frank Ellermann, 11:39
- RE: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Seth Goodman, 11:32
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, wayne, 10:32
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, wayne, 10:03
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, Jonathan Gardner, 09:44
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Frank Ellermann, 08:35
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Frank Ellermann, 07:54
- RE: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Seth Goodman, 06:10
- RE: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 05:50
- RE: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Gary Levell, 01:10
- Re: Emails to SPF domains, Paul Howarth, 00:24
July 05, 2004
- Re: Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Roger Moser, 23:59
- Emails to SPF domains, Reuben Olson, 17:42
- Scope macro, alternative syntaxes, and use cases, Mark Lentczner, 15:23
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Graham Murray, 14:45
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Roger Moser, 14:29
- RE: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 13:59
- Re: RCPT TO: rejecting, John A. Martin, 13:46
- RE: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Seth Goodman, 13:38
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Seth Goodman, 13:23
- Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Roy Badami, 12:22
- SPF record interpretation question, Willem Kossen, 01:42
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martnes, 01:35
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, william(at)elan.net, 00:50
July 04, 2004
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martens, 23:41
- Re: local translations of spf.pobox.com, Koen Martens, 23:32
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 07/05/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: local translations of spf.pobox.com, Greg Wooledge, 15:45
- why.html, Frank Ellermann, 15:39
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 15:26
- Re: Re[2]: ISP migration information, Aredridel, 15:23
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 14:19
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Karl Prince, 14:14
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Frank Ellermann, 13:47
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Meng Weng Wong, 10:23
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Scott Kitterman, 08:09
- Re: ISP migration information, administrator, 07:39
- Re: Re[2]: False positives, mike, 06:45
- Re: Re[2]: False positives, Karl Prince, 06:04
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Karl Prince, 03:53
- Re[2]: ISP migration information, Chris Drake, 03:47
- Re[2]: False positives, Chris Drake, 03:21
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Graham Murray, 03:08
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Karl Prince, 02:40
- local translations of spf.pobox.com, Koen Martens, 01:48
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, william(at)elan.net, 01:39
- Re: Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Roger Moser, 01:24
- Re: ISP migration information, Aredridel, 00:23
July 03, 2004
- Re: Red Hat publishes, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:49
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, Jon Kyme, 18:17
- Unified SPF works in progress now in alpha, Meng Weng Wong, 18:02
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working -- Implementation, David Lawless, 17:52
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:51
- Re: spf.pobox.com website, Roger Moser, 12:49
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, Meng Weng Wong, 12:46
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martens, 12:08
- ISP migration information, Koen Martens, 12:04
- Re: Why Modified SPF is Working, David Burns, 11:52
- Re: spf.pobox.com website, Meng Weng Wong, 10:17
- Re: spf.pobox.com website, Koen Martens, 08:14
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, gmc, 08:08
- spf.pobox.com website, Roger Moser, 07:08
- Using SPF stats for advocacy, Allen Unueco, 06:42
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Michael Weiner, 06:18
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 05:14
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Scott Kitterman, 03:52
- Bell South requires SMTP-AUTH of all customers by July 13, 2004, James Couzens, 02:55
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 02:50
- Why Modified SPF is Working, David Lawless, 02:05
- Why Modified SPF is Working, David Lawless, 01:54
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martens, 00:52
July 02, 2004
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 20:13
- Re: False positives, Meng Weng Wong, 18:49
- False positives, Philip Gladstone, 18:24
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martens, 14:58
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 13:46
- Re: match_subdomains Inconsistency in Draft RFC?, Frank Ellermann, 13:25
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, spf, 13:23
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Mark Shewmaker, 12:57
- Re: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 12:54
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, spf, 12:19
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Karl Prince, 11:51
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, spf, 11:47
- match_subdomains Inconsistency in Draft RFC?, James P. Rutledge, 11:17
- RE: Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, Seth Goodman, 11:02
- FYI: Windows program to check spf records, administrator, 10:33
- Reputation Services and HELO/EHLO Checking For Unified SPF, spf, 09:28
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, Shevek, 04:31
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Shevek, 04:17
July 01, 2004
- Re: Re: wizard.html problems, Koen Martens, 23:10
- Re: Re[2]: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 14:46
- RE: Administrative Denial?, Karl Prince, 14:28
- Re: wizard.html problems, Frank Ellermann, 14:27
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, James Couzens, 14:20
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, gmc, 13:52
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, James Couzens, 13:35
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, James Couzens, 13:30
- Re: Mail::SPF::Query not recognising secondary MX using IPv6, Philipp Morger, 13:08
- Re: Administrative Denial?, Karl Prince, 11:14
- Re: libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, Koen Martens, 11:00
- Re: register.com and SPF advocacy, Jonathan Gardner, 10:57
- libspf vs libspf2? Hunh?, Jeff A. Earickson, 09:48
- RE: [OT] Anyone here look after the spf records for<anything>.ruk1.com?, Julian Mehnle, 09:46
- Re: Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Meng Weng Wong, 09:33
- Boycott Caller-ID for E-mail, Reggie B., 08:22
- [OT] Anyone here look after the spf records for <anything>.ruk1.com?, Ian Castle, 08:12
- Re: Administrative Denial - working as desgned, Adrian Midgley, 07:27
- Re: Administrative Denial?, Paul Howarth, 06:33
- Re[2]: Clarification of %{p} macro & 4.6 Ptr validated domain resolution, Chris Drake, 06:17
- Re: Administrative Denial?, Graham Murray, 06:07
- Re: Administrative Denial?, Paul Howarth, 06:06