SPF Discuss (date)
August 30, 2004
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Alan Batie, 21:46
- Sendmail releases SenderID milter, wayne, 18:28
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., william(at)elan.net, 17:00
- Fw: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., jpinkerton, 15:34
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., jpinkerton, 12:49
- Mail from a frustrated victim of spamming..., Shoaib, 12:34
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., guy, 12:29
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., guy, 12:17
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Holm, Mark, 10:09
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deploymentfriction, Alain Knaff, 05:02
August 29, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 08/30/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., wayne, 19:03
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Greg Connor, 14:28
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:07
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, AccuSpam, 10:56
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:44
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., David Brodbeck, 10:35
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, David Brodbeck, 10:31
- Re: Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 10:11
- Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Lloyd Zusman, 10:04
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., william(at)elan.net, 10:00
- Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 09:46
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Paul Howarth, 09:44
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., wayne, 09:37
- Re: Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:25
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, AccuSpam, 09:08
- RE: Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., guy, 08:37
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Greg Wooledge, 07:29
- Re: Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Paul Howarth, 03:17
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, jpinkerton, 02:37
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, jpinkerton, 02:17
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, Koen Martens, 01:20
August 28, 2004
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Graham Murray, 23:22
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, Greg Connor, 21:52
- RE: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], AccuSpam, 17:26
- RE: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], guy, 17:05
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 17:00
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, AccuSpam, 16:51
- Re: PRA - purported responsible address, Meng Weng Wong, 16:25
- PRA - purported responsible address, jpinkerton, 16:14
- Mail from an IPv6 host to an IPv4 host, Roger Moser, 15:33
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Koen Martens, 15:09
- Re: Mail from an IPv6 host to an IPv4 host, Koen Martens, 14:28
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., guy, 13:42
- Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Roger Moser, 12:07
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, AccuSpam, 11:33
- Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 11:05
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deploymentfriction, Greg Connor, 11:03
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 10:52
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deploymentfriction, AccuSpam, 10:29
- Re: Out of Office AutoReply: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], David Woodhouse, 10:00
- Re: Out of Office AutoReply: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Greg Connor, 09:08
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, guy, 08:43
- Re: Out of Office AutoReply: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], jpinkerton, 07:06
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Meng Weng Wong, 06:46
- Ps: SPF and RBL email checker now also does HashCash (CallerID as well), Chris Drake, 06:05
- Re: Re: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Chris Drake, 05:59
- SPF and RBL email checker now also does HashCash, Chris Drake, 05:56
- Re: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Paul Howarth, 05:22
- Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., christopher, 05:18
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Paul Howarth, 05:16
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, David Woodhouse, 04:39
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 04:03
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 02:51
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Paul Howarth, 01:45
- Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], jpinkerton, 01:13
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, william(at)elan.net, 01:08
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, AccuSpam, 01:00
- Re: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Jeremy Kister, 00:57
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Mark Smith, 00:45
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Mark Smith, 00:41
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 00:36
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., william(at)elan.net, 00:34
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, guy, 00:31
August 27, 2004
- RE: Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 23:56
- Can SPF support subdomain reputation?, AccuSpam, 23:48
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Ken Simpson, 22:19
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Meng Weng Wong, 22:04
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Stuart D. Gathman, 21:23
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Jake S, 20:17
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Paul Iadonisi, 19:39
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Jake S, 19:25
- Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Meng Weng Wong, 18:15
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 14:54
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 14:41
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 14:29
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 13:58
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, David Brodbeck, 13:38
- Re: Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, Rodolfo Sikora, 13:30
- Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 13:28
- SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 13:22
- SPF deployment friction, AccuSpam, 13:16
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, guy, 08:16
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 08:08
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 07:50
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, guy, 07:09
- Mail from an IPv6 host to an IPv4 host, Roger Moser, 04:24
August 26, 2004
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 23:59
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 23:59
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, guy, 18:08
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, william(at)elan.net, 17:17
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 17:03
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Mark Shewmaker, 16:38
- RE: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 15:53
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark Shewmaker, 15:14
- RE: Postfix "command time limit exceeded" warnings?, terry, 14:37
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 14:31
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Brodbeck, 14:07
- Postfix "command time limit exceeded" warnings?, Paul Hutchings, 13:49
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 13:37
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 13:11
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Matthew.van.Eerde, 11:17
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Chuck Mead, 10:20
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Alan Hodgson, 10:14
- RE: Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], guy, 09:52
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Woodhouse, 09:44
- Re: Fw: Received your email, administrator, 09:04
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Brodbeck, 06:56
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Brodbeck, 06:51
- RE: Sender ID and Return Path, Scott Kitterman, 06:16
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 04:49
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 04:30
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Paul Howarth, 04:30
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Karl Prince, 04:24
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, william(at)elan.net, 04:22
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Karl Prince, 04:05
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 03:49
- Re: Fwd: Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 03:06
- RE: Sender ID and Return Path, John Glube, 02:43
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Paul Howarth, 02:00
- Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:53
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 01:14
August 25, 2004
- Re: Fwd: Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, william(at)elan.net, 22:32
- RE: Fw: Received your email, guy, 21:46
- a suggestion regarding list volume, Meng Weng Wong, 19:47
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 18:08
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:56
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 17:18
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:48
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:46
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:44
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 16:39
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Mark C. Langston, 16:32
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:29
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:21
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 16:16
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 15:59
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:51
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, jpinkerton, 15:50
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 15:49
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 15:48
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, terry, 15:48
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:40
- Re: A hyperdimensional anti-spam machine?, AccuSpam, 15:37
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 15:37
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:33
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 15:27
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 15:27
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:19
- Re: A hyperdimensional anti-spam machine?, Jonathan Gardner, 15:17
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, David Brodbeck, 15:14
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 15:14
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 15:11
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:08
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, David Brodbeck, 15:07
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:06
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:06
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 14:56
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 14:54
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 14:39
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 14:17
- Re: Bounces being forwarded to wrong folder, Koen Martens, 14:02
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Shoaib, 13:56
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Matthew.van.Eerde, 13:55
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 13:46
- Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:45
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 13:38
- Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:37
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:35
- Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Roger Moser, 13:26
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 13:21
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Seth Goodman, 13:14
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 13:13
- Re: Patent license, Koen Martens, 13:13
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Scott Kitterman, 13:06
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 13:02
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Koen Martens, 12:46
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Scott Kitterman, 12:41
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Matthew.van.Eerde, 12:37
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Matthew.van.Eerde, 12:34
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:32
- Re: Fwd: Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 12:26
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 12:01
- RE: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, Matthew.van.Eerde, 11:37
- Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption, AccuSpam, 11:32
- Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs, Holm, Mark, 11:02
- FBI, others are prosecuting spammers, Jonathan Gardner, 10:59
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Chuck Mead, 10:58
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark, 10:52
- Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Paul Iadonisi, 10:42
- RE: Bounces being forwarded to wrong folder, terry, 10:27
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 10:26
- Re: Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Alan Hodgson, 10:19
- Bounces being forwarded to wrong folder, Noman Salim, 10:10
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Chuck Mead, 10:05
- Re: Fwd: Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:37
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Woodhouse, 09:28
- RE: Patent license, Scott Kitterman, 09:14
- A hyperdimensional anti-spam machine?, Holm, Mark, 09:07
- Re: Patent license, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:05
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark, 08:58
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 08:49
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 08:46
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 08:38
- Re: Patent license, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:38
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 08:35
- RE: Fw: Received your email, terry, 08:17
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Brodbeck, 08:11
- Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs, Holm, Mark, 07:58
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 07:56
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Guy, 07:53
- Re: Fw: Received your email, administrator, 07:50
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 07:02
- Re: Sender ID and Return Path, Andrew W . Donoho, 06:59
- Re: [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Holm, Mark, 06:51
- Re: Providing strict SMTP-AUTH and incoming spf-checking SMTP, Koen Martens, 06:28
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:11
- RE: Patent license, Scott Kitterman, 05:35
- Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Roger Moser, 05:28
- RE: Patent license, terry, 04:56
- Re[2]: Patent license, Chris Drake, 04:14
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 03:39
- Re: Patent license, AccuSpam, 03:26
- Re: Patent license, AccuSpam, 03:02
- Re: Patent license, jpinkerton, 01:57
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 01:56
- Re: Providing strict SMTP-AUTH and incoming spf-checking SMTP, jpinkerton, 01:32
- Providing strict SMTP-AUTH and incoming spf-checking SMTP, Koen Martens, 00:24
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 00:18
August 24, 2004
- Stronger checks against email forgery, John Glube, 23:17
- Re: Patent license, Graham Murray, 22:56
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 21:34
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 20:33
- RE: Patent license, Ryan Malayter, 19:49
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 18:05
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Brodbeck, 18:00
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, David Brodbeck, 17:58
- [Fwd: DEPLOY: Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs], Paul Iadonisi, 17:46
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 16:24
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Chuck Mead, 15:59
- RE: Patent license, terry, 15:47
- Re: Patent license, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:37
- Re: Patent license, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:34
- Re: Patent license, Holm, Mark, 15:10
- RE: Patent license, Ryan Malayter, 15:07
- Re: Fw: Received your email, frank, 14:39
- RE: Fw: Received your email, Ring, John C, 14:21
- Re: Fwd: Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Ralf Doeblitz, 14:07
- Re: Patent license, Waitman C Gobble II, 13:57
- Re: Patent license, Waitman C Gobble II, 13:52
- Re: Patent license, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:50
- Re: Patent license, jpinkerton, 13:49
- Re: Fw: Received your email, administrator, 13:48
- RE: Patent license, Matthew.van.Eerde, 13:38
- Re: Patent license, Waitman C Gobble II, 13:33
- Re: Patent license, Waitman C Gobble II, 13:21
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 13:20
- Re: Patent license, Chip Mefford, 13:17
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Alan Hodgson, 13:14
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 12:57
- Re: Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Rodolfo Sikora, 12:53
- Re: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed, Mark C. Langston, 12:39
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Seth Goodman, 12:36
- RE: Patent license, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:22
- RE: Patent license, Seth Goodman, 12:16
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 12:14
- Re: Patent license, Koen Martens, 12:08
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 12:07
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:52
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:44
- Re: Patent license, Paul Iadonisi, 11:38
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Mark C. Langston, 11:30
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Guy, 11:27
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Guy, 11:26
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Paul Howarth, 11:25
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 11:22
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Mark C. Langston, 11:19
- Re: Patent license, Michel Bouissou, 11:18
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 11:17
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 11:11
- Re: Patent license, wayne, 11:00
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:59
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:58
- Re: Patent license, Alan Hodgson, 10:47
- Re: Patent license, Holm, Mark, 10:17
- Re: Sender ID and Return Path, Waitman C Gobble II, 10:10
- Re: Re: Patent license, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 09:46
- Re: Sender ID and Return Path, Koen Martens, 09:42
- Re: Patent license, wayne, 09:00
- Re: Sender ID and Return Path, Graham Murray, 08:19
- Re: Patent license, jpinkerton, 08:12
- Re: Re: Patent license, Chuck Mead, 07:53
- Re: Patent license, jpinkerton, 07:51
- Re: Patent license, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:19
- Re: Patent license, wayne, 07:11
- Re: Patent license, william(at)elan.net, 06:58
- Re: Patent license, Michel Bouissou, 06:03
- Re: Patent license, Rodolfo Sikora, 05:58
- Re: Patent license, Koen Martens, 05:47
- Re: Patent license, william(at)elan.net, 05:46
- Patent license, Meng Weng Wong, 05:12
- Sender ID and Return Path, Meng Weng Wong, 05:11
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Karl Prince, 02:41
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Woodhouse, 02:30
- [andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us: Working Group Last Call on Sender ID documents], Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:01
August 23, 2004
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark, 22:12
- Re: Fw: Received your email, David Woodhouse, 16:16
- spfd, Doug Jolley, 15:09
- Re: libspf2 1.0.4 fails compile on Solaris 7, Dean Brooks, 14:33
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark, 13:57
- Re: libspf2 1.0.4 fails compile on Solaris 7, Koen Martens, 13:55
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Chuck Mead, 13:32
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Mark, 13:21
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 12:21
- Re: Fw: Received your email, Alan Hodgson, 12:09
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 12:02
- Re: Fw: Received your email, administrator, 12:00
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, jpinkerton, 11:56
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:47
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Seth Goodman, 11:42
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, wayne, 11:12
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, guy, 11:00
- Re: Out of here, jpinkerton, 10:29
- SenderKeys discussion list, Meng Weng Wong, 10:27
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, AccuSpam, 10:11
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark C. Langston, 09:59
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 09:43
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 09:42
- RE: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Scott Kitterman, 09:37
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Meng Weng Wong, 09:27
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Seth Goodman, 09:01
- Re: Out of here, Michel Bouissou, 07:58
- Re: Out of here, Rodolfo Sikora, 07:08
- Re: Fw: Received your email, administrator, 07:01
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Koen Martens, 06:49
- RE: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Scott Kitterman, 06:15
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 06:12
- RE: Sub domains, Seth Goodman, 06:02
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 05:32
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Greg Wooledge, 04:23
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Greg Wooledge, 04:06
August 22, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 08/23/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:40
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Koen Martens, 23:35
- RE: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Ralf Doeblitz, 23:07
- Out of here, Peter Bowyer, 22:32
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, David Brodbeck, 16:29
- RE: Email forwarding w/o submission service, guy, 15:31
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, David Woodhouse, 14:52
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], David Woodhouse, 14:50
- libspf2 1.0.4 fails compile on Solaris 7, Dean Brooks, 11:32
- Re: SPF record for the HELO domain (for empty return-paths), Karl Prince, 09:03
- RE: SPF record for the HELO domain (for empty return-paths), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 05:30
- Email forwarding w/o submission service, Roger Moser, 03:52
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 03:52
- SPF record for the HELO domain (for empty return-paths), Roger Moser, 03:52
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Koen Martens, 02:39
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Karl Prince, 01:03
- thanks (was: Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys), Marc Kool, 00:56
August 21, 2004
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) OpeningDebate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Waitman C Gobble II, 23:59
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Waitman C Gobble II, 23:58
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Graham Murray, 23:52
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Ralf Doeblitz, 23:46
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Nick Phillips, 23:37
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) OpeningDebate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 23:09
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Mark, 23:04
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Waitman C Gobble II, 22:58
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 22:52
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 20:49
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Lloyd Zusman, 20:30
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:55
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:52
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Meng Weng Wong, 17:49
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:46
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 17:30
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Guy, 17:29
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:28
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Jesse Gordon, 17:23
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Guy, 17:18
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:16
- RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 17:00
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, John Keown, 16:56
- RE: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", guy, 16:50
- RE: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, guy, 16:45
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Jesse Gordon, 16:40
- RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", guy, 16:21
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 16:10
- RE: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], guy, 16:08
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 16:08
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Koen Martens, 15:56
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 15:36
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, michael, 15:31
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 15:31
- Re: Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, David Brodbeck, 15:27
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 15:17
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Phil White, 15:17
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 15:15
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, michael, 15:12
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], AccuSpam, 15:10
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 15:06
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 14:55
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list shouldauto-responses go?", Mark, 14:54
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Mark, 14:48
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:47
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:45
- Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Roger Moser, 14:41
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 14:39
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, william(at)elan.net, 14:35
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, Roger Moser, 14:24
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:19
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", David Brodbeck, 14:18
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 14:17
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, michael, 14:17
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:08
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 14:04
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, John Keown, 14:00
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], AccuSpam, 13:59
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 13:53
- "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", AccuSpam, 13:51
- Re: "RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?", David Brodbeck, 13:46
- Re: Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, wayne, 13:43
- Re: Shelby, AccuSpam, 13:34
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 13:29
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 13:21
- Can SPF identify wildcard domain forgery?, AccuSpam, 13:11
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], AccuSpam, 13:07
- Re: Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, Meng Weng Wong, 12:47
- Shelby, Jesse Gordon, 12:34
- Shelby, Jesse Gordon, 12:24
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 11:00
- RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, David Brodbeck, 10:55
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], David Brodbeck, 10:43
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], Waitman C Gobble II, 10:34
- RE: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], David Brodbeck, 10:30
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Frank Ellermann, 10:21
- RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:52
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:44
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, guy, 09:44
- RE: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Guy, 09:36
- Re: Please ignore this accuspam person, Mark, 08:12
- Re: SES, Mark, 08:03
- Re: Please ignore this accuspam person, Frank Ellermann, 07:42
- Please halt the discussion of SenderKeys, wayne, 07:39
- Re: SPF and current sender-id drafts, Chris Haynes, 07:34
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Meng Weng Wong, 07:24
- RE: SPF and current sender-id drafts, John Glube, 06:28
- Re: Email forwarding w/o submission service, Koen Martens, 03:50
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 03:50
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 03:33
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], David Woodhouse, 03:22
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 03:03
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], AccuSpam, 02:40
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 02:34
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, jpinkerton, 02:30
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 02:28
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 02:23
- Re: SPF and current sender-id drafts, AccuSpam, 02:16
- Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 02:14
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 02:13
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Graham Murray, 02:12
- Please ignore this accuspam person, Koen Martens, 02:10
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 02:08
- Re: SPF and current sender-id drafts, jpinkerton, 02:01
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Koen Martens, 01:53
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re:(spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 01:53
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark, 01:51
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, jpinkerton, 01:51
- Re: SPF and current sender-id drafts, Koen Martens, 01:48
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Graham Murray, 01:46
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 01:40
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 01:30
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re:(spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Mark, 01:29
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 01:22
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 01:18
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 01:08
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 01:04
- Email forwarding w/o submission service, Barry Margolin, 01:02
- Re: Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, Ralf Doeblitz, 00:59
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 00:53
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark, 00:48
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Graham Murray, 00:45
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], jpinkerton, 00:41
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 00:38
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 00:37
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Graham Murray, 00:29
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 00:08
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Mark, 00:08
August 20, 2004
- Which address of this list should auto-responses go?, AccuSpam, 23:54
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], Waitman C Gobble II, 23:54
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, guy, 23:51
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Waitman C Gobble II, 23:51
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss)Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Mark, 23:47
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], AccuSpam, 23:32
- RE: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], AccuSpam, 23:24
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 23:18
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], Waitman C Gobble II, 23:12
- RE: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], guy, 23:06
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 23:04
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 22:54
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Mark, 22:38
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 22:33
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 21:48
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:47
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Waitman C Gobble II, 21:45
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 21:33
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 21:06
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 21:03
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 20:40
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 20:36
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Scott Kitterman, 20:14
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 20:11
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 20:00
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 19:56
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 19:52
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Waitman C Gobble II, 19:52
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 19:35
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 19:32
- Re: Sub domains, Meng Weng Wong, 19:25
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Waitman C Gobble II, 19:20
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 19:20
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 19:16
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 19:11
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 19:08
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Waitman C Gobble II, 18:55
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 18:49
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 17:48
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 17:20
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 16:53
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 16:40
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Dobes Vandermeer, 16:36
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 16:34
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 16:31
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 16:20
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 16:15
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 15:59
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Waitman C Gobble II, 15:37
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, jpinkerton, 15:29
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Koen Martens, 15:27
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Koen Martens, 15:19
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], John A. Martin, 15:09
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Dobes Vandermeer, 15:07
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 15:07
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], AccuSpam, 14:53
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Dobes Vandermeer, 14:45
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Chuck Mead, 14:43
- SPF and current sender-id drafts, Jeff Macdonald, 14:39
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:33
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:31
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark C. Langston, 14:29
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 14:19
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:54
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Chuck Mead, 13:40
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, jpinkerton, 13:35
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 13:30
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Scott Kitterman, 13:26
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], jpinkerton, 13:12
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Dobes Vandermeer, 13:10
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 13:06
- RE: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Scott Kitterman, 13:03
- Re: Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], Tim Kennedy, 13:01
- Re: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Good Domain List one step closer to reality...], jpinkerton, 12:59
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Scott Kitterman, 12:50
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], Tim Kennedy, 12:38
- [Fwd: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys]], Chuck Mead, 12:36
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 12:32
- Re: Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], David Woodhouse, 12:32
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 12:32
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 12:24
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Scott Kitterman, 12:24
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark, 12:19
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Chuck Mead, 12:18
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 12:12
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Dobes Vandermeer, 12:12
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 12:08
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Matthew.van.Eerde, 12:07
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 11:58
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 11:56
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, jpinkerton, 11:47
- Fw: Received your email: [(spf-discuss) Fw: Received your email: (Re: (spf-discuss) Ope...], Mark, 11:47
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, David Brodbeck, 11:46
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 11:41
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Matthew.van.Eerde, 11:41
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 11:38
- Fw: Received your email: [Re: (spf-discuss) Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys], Mark, 11:38
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, David Brodbeck, 11:35
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, David Lawless, 11:28
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, David Brodbeck, 11:24
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Mark, 11:21
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 11:21
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 11:04
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 11:01
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 10:46
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Ken Simpson, 10:35
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 10:35
- Re: Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Jason Gurtz, 09:58
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Ben Damm, 09:53
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Matthew.van.Eerde, 09:51
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 09:46
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Lloyd Zusman, 09:25
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 09:20
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 08:55
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Tim Kennedy, 08:44
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Koen Martens, 08:36
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, jpinkerton, 08:36
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Rodolfo Sikora, 08:35
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Matthew.van.Eerde, 08:32
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 08:25
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, aSe, 08:20
- RE: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Scott Kitterman, 08:18
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, aSe, 08:09
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 08:02
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, jpinkerton, 07:46
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 07:38
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Rodolfo Sikora, 07:09
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Christian Brunschen, 07:03
- Re: Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, Jason Gurtz, 06:57
- Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys, AccuSpam, 06:42
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Koen Martens, 05:42
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Koen Martens, 05:37
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark, 04:48
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Paul Howarth, 00:57
August 19, 2004
- RE: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Seth Goodman, 23:22
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Waitman C Gobble II, 21:33
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:27
- RE: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, guy, 20:48
- RE: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Mark Smith, 20:32
- RE: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, guy, 20:26
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Tim Kennedy, 20:14
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark, 19:54
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 19:35
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 19:32
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, David Lawless, 19:27
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 19:27
- RE: Sub domains, Scott Kitterman, 19:23
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 18:59
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 17:43
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 17:39
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 17:31
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Greg Wooledge, 17:05
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 16:43
- SMTP AUTH transition, Meng Weng Wong, 15:16
- Re: Sub domains, william(at)elan.net, 13:43
- Re: Question about SPF, Lou Katz, 12:51
- Re: Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, Koen Martens, 12:48
- Re: Sub domains, jpinkerton, 12:46
- Re: Sub domains, Mark C. Langston, 12:45
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 12:44
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 12:42
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 12:37
- Re: Sub domains, David Brodbeck, 12:15
- Re: Sub domains, Mark C. Langston, 11:58
- Perfect Spam Blocking with SPF -- Update, David Lawless, 11:45
- RE: Sub domains, Scott Kitterman, 11:39
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 11:31
- Re: Sub domains, Mark C. Langston, 11:23
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 11:18
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Dobes Vandermeer, 11:10
- Re: Question about SPF, Chip Mefford, 10:56
- Re: Question about SPF, Waitman C Gobble II, 10:53
- Re: Question about SPF, Lou Katz, 10:47
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), guy, 10:31
- RE: Sub domains, guy, 09:54
- RE: .name help, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:39
- [ANNOUNCE] mxfilter for postfix 2, Różański Sergiusz, 09:29
- Re: Sub domains, Mark C. Langston, 08:23
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 08:18
- Re: Sub domains, Mark C. Langston, 08:11
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality(actually two steps), jpinkerton, 07:20
- Re: Question about SPF, David Beveridge, 07:02
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Fridrik Skulason, 05:57
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 05:20
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 01:37
- Re: Sub domains, Koen Martens, 01:16
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Paul Howarth, 00:29
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Paul Howarth, 00:23
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Nick Phillips, 00:01
August 18, 2004
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 23:10
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Graham Murray, 23:09
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Graham Murray, 23:01
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Scott Kitterman, 19:14
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 19:13
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Rodolfo Sikora, 18:42
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 17:21
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 15:37
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 15:30
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Dobes Vandermeer, 15:23
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Nico Kadel-Garcia, 14:32
- RE: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, guy, 13:35
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 13:34
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Dotzero, 13:19
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Waitman C Gobble II, 13:11
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), spf, 12:27
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Koen Martens, 12:00
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Koen Martens, 11:44
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Koen Martens, 11:39
- Sub domains, guy, 11:24
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Waitman C Gobble II, 11:09
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Fridrik Skulason, 11:02
- RE: .name help, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:48
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Jonathan Gardner, 10:41
- RE: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 10:24
- RE: .name help, Ralf Doeblitz, 10:17
- Re: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 10:06
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 10:00
- Re: SES, Paul Iadonisi, 09:15
- RE: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 09:02
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark, 08:33
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 08:30
- RE: Question about SPF, Scott Kitterman, 08:23
- Question about SPF, dr2, 08:00
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark, 07:59
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark, 07:46
- RE: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, administrator, 07:42
- Re: SES, Tony Finch, 03:09
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM, Fridrik Skulason, 03:05
- Re: SES, Mark, 01:43
- Re: SES, David Woodhouse, 01:09
- Re: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 00:13
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 00:05
August 17, 2004
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 22:55
- Re: .name help, Koen Martens, 22:49
- Re: SES, Koen Martens, 22:43
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Koen Martens, 22:27
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 20:43
- RE: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), guy, 17:48
- RE: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 16:46
- RE: Why will SPF stop SPAM, Matthew.van.Eerde, 16:46
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 16:43
- Re: SES, Mark, 16:23
- Re: SES, Mark, 16:19
- Re: Re:Why will SPF stop SPAM, Mark, 16:08
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Rodolfo Sikora, 14:55
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Michael Weiner, 14:51
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 14:35
- .name help, Roger Moser, 13:30
- Re: accreditation and reputation ASRG activity, Mark C. Langston, 12:51
- accreditation and reputation ASRG activity, Meng Weng Wong, 12:47
- RE: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Stuart D. Gathman, 12:19
- Re: Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Paul Howarth, 12:06
- RE: [spf] Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, JBritain, 11:31
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Daniel Taylor, 11:14
- Re: SES (off topic -- Apache::SMTP), Ken Simpson, 10:56
- Re: .name help, Koen Martens, 10:55
- Re: SES, Koen Martens, 10:46
- Roberto Olivares is out of the office., Roberto E Olivares, 10:44
- RE: Why will SPF stop SPAM., guy, 10:41
- RE: Why will SPF stop SPAM., guy, 10:36
- RE: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Guy Watkins, 10:24
- Some thoughts about spam and SPF, Fridrik Skulason, 10:12
- Re: SES, David Woodhouse, 09:50
- Re: SES, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:35
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Fridrik Skulason, 09:31
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Rodolfo Sikora, 08:22
- SES, Meng Weng Wong, 08:20
- .name help, Roger Moser, 08:10
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., SmallFries, 08:06
- Re: .name help, Koen Martens, 06:52
- Re: TXT as last record, Len Conrad, 06:48
- .name help, Roger Moser, 06:44
- Why will SPF stop SPAM, Roger Moser, 06:44
- Re: TXT as last record, Tim Kennedy, 06:29
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM, Koen Martens, 06:27
- Re:Why will SPF stop SPAM, Holm, Mark, 06:09
- Re: .name help, Koen Martens, 06:02
- RE: .name help, Anthony DePinto, 05:50
- Re: .name help, Koen Martens, 05:37
- .name help, Anthony DePinto, 05:30
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Daniel Taylor, 05:25
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Fridrik Skulason, 02:55
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 02:04
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Koen Martens, 00:45
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., David Woodhouse, 00:37
- Re: TXT as last record, Koen Martens, 00:36
August 16, 2004
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 23:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Tom Corwine, 23:21
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Paul Howarth, 23:21
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Meng Weng Wong, 23:21
- Re: Why will SPF stop SPAM., Tom Corwine, 23:20
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Graham Murray, 23:13
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Waitman C Gobble II, 23:05
- Why will SPF stop SPAM., guy, 23:01
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Ian Peter, 22:48
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Hinton, 22:27
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 18:24
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Guy Watkins, 17:14
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Greg Wooledge, 17:06
- Re: TXT as last record, Tom Corwine, 16:33
- Re: TXT as last record, Meng Weng Wong, 16:18
- TXT as last record, Noman Salim, 16:17
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Meng Weng Wong, 16:07
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 16:02
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Tom, 15:43
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 15:30
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 15:19
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 15:17
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 15:17
- RE: Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Guy Watkins, 12:54
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John A. Martin, 12:34
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 12:31
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 12:22
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark, 12:01
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), guy, 11:55
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 11:54
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 11:42
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark, 11:40
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Paul Howarth, 11:40
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 11:17
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 10:51
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Stuart D. Gathman, 10:26
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 10:09
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 09:13
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Mark C. Langston, 08:16
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 08:12
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 08:12
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 07:26
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Koen Martens, 06:42
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Koen Martens, 06:39
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, David Brodbeck, 06:29
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:27
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 06:25
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 05:48
- Re: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Tony Finch, 05:28
- Re: spf-milter and memory, jpinkerton, 05:19
- RE: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, George Young1, 05:13
- RE: Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, George Young1, 04:55
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 04:49
- Co-operative 'bulk mail' alerting, Chris Haynes, 04:40
- Re: spf-milter and memory, jpinkerton, 04:34
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 04:33
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 04:28
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 04:22
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Michael Weiner, 04:22
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 04:18
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 04:05
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 03:59
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 03:23
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Koen Martens, 03:20
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 00:52
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 00:45
August 15, 2004
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 23:55
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), guy, 23:36
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 08/16/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 21:59
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 21:40
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Meng Weng Wong, 21:16
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 19:11
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Seth Goodman, 18:10
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Greg Wooledge, 15:49
- RE: Testing?, Scott Kitterman, 09:29
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 09:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 05:44
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:05
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:57
August 14, 2004
- RE: Testing?, guy, 23:33
- RE: Testing?, Scott Kitterman, 20:34
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 17:21
- RE: Testing?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 16:33
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Graham Murray, 15:42
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Mark C. Langston, 15:20
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 15:10
- Re: spf-milter and memory, Mark, 14:24
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Mark C. Langston, 13:12
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 12:21
- Re: Testing?, Koen Martens, 12:08
- RE: Testing?, guy, 12:02
- RE: Testing?, guy, 11:53
- RE: Testing?, guy, 11:48
- RE: Testing?, guy, 11:46
- Re: Testing?, Michael Weiner, 10:17
- RE: Testing?, nospam, 09:57
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Mark C. Langston, 09:56
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 09:44
- RE: Testing?, guy, 09:33
- Re: Testing?, Meng Weng Wong, 08:47
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 08:35
- Re: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, Koen Martens, 08:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 08:24
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 07:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 07:22
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 07:06
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 05:53
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 04:58
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Koen Martens, 04:41
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:39
- Re: Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:29
- Re: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, Koen Martens, 04:28
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 04:26
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Koen Martens, 04:19
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Frank Ellermann, 04:08
- RE: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, Mark Smith, 03:59
- TechWeb - Microsoft met with 80 e-mail providers on Thursday to discuss Sender ID, Thomas Harold, 00:03
August 13, 2004
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Ralf Doeblitz, 23:26
- RE: Testing?, terry, 21:41
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 21:41
- RE: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, John Glube, 21:27
- RE: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, Guy Watkins, 21:14
- Re: Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, Meng Weng Wong, 20:32
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, jpinkerton, 17:11
- Co-ordination of activities between MS and SPF for Sender-ID, John Glube, 16:59
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Ken Simpson, 16:48
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Guy, 16:31
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Mark C. Langston, 16:19
- RE: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, John Glube, 16:08
- Testing?, Guy, 15:55
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), John Glube, 15:38
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Jason Gurtz, 15:37
- Re: Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Tom, 15:10
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:09
- Authentication, Accreditation, and Reputation, Jonathan Gardner, 14:58
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Tom, 14:58
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), george+spf, 14:57
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Tom, 14:56
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Fridrik Skulason, 14:52
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 14:46
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 14:40
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Jonathan Gardner, 14:40
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Jonathan Gardner, 14:38
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 14:37
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 14:34
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Jonathan Gardner, 14:33
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 14:30
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Jonathan Gardner, 14:27
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 13:20
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 13:07
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 12:51
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 12:44
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Tom, 12:34
- Re: Blackberry & Skytel, Koen Martens, 12:16
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), David Brodbeck, 12:08
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 11:47
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), jpinkerton, 11:42
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark, 11:33
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:26
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), George Mitchell, 11:16
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 11:08
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:02
- Blackberry & Skytel, Scott Leff, 10:48
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Jonathan Gardner, 10:33
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 10:11
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Matthew.van.Eerde, 09:28
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Len Conrad, 09:02
- Re: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Mark C. Langston, 08:34
- Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), Meng Weng Wong, 00:14
August 12, 2004
- RE: Good Domain List one step closer to reality (actually two steps), terry, 23:32
- how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Roger Moser, 13:31
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 11:30
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Len Conrad, 11:24
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Koen Martens, 11:22
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:07
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 10:53
- Re: New IRC chat facility, Shevek, 04:34
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, David Woodhouse, 03:40
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Len Conrad, 02:44
August 11, 2004
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Koen Martens, 22:59
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 19:53
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 19:52
- fake paypal.com phishing example, Greg Wooledge, 16:02
- New IRC chat facility, jpinkerton, 14:07
- Meng's eMail to MARID WG Chair, Chris Haynes, 12:56
- Re: Basic Question, Koen Martens, 12:27
- Basic Question, Lou Katz, 11:53
- Re: Whitelisting, Jonathan Gardner, 10:42
- RE: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Scott Kitterman, 10:36
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:33
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 09:52
- Re: how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Tom, 09:52
- how to avoid receiving email w. sender forged to be a host in my domain, Jonathan C. Detert, 08:24
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Len Conrad, 06:43
- RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, william(at)elan.net, 05:46
- Re: Whitelisting, Koen Martens, 01:35
- Re: question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Frank Ellermann, 01:10
August 10, 2004
- Re: Whitelisting, Graham Murray, 23:58
- Whitelisting, Emmanuel Ormancey, 23:40
- RE: motleyfool.com spf results, Mark Smith, 23:26
- motleyfool.com spf results, Shoaib, 23:09
- Re: Re: Red Hat publishes, Paul Iadonisi, 12:56
- RE: question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Scott Kitterman, 12:37
- RE: help testing spf-aware MTA, Matthew.van.Eerde, 10:41
- Re: question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:41
- Re: help testing spf-aware MTA, Michel Bouissou, 09:08
- Re: help testing spf-aware MTA, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:56
- Re: question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Rene Barbier, 08:08
- Re: question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Koen Martens, 07:45
- Re: help testing spf-aware MTA, Koen Martens, 07:43
- RE: Are these dns TXT statements ok?, George Young1, 07:34
- help testing spf-aware MTA, Jonathan C. Detert, 07:17
- question about 'mechanism prefix' softfail and neutral, Jonathan C. Detert, 06:27
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 00:21
- Re: Are these dns TXT statements ok?, Koen Martens, 00:04
- Re: Basic Questions from a Hosting Company, Koen Martens, 00:03
August 09, 2004
- Re: Re: change of version string, Mark Lentczner, 21:00
- RE: Are these dns TXT statements ok?, George Young1, 19:13
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 17:54
- Basic Questions from a Hosting Company, John Hinton, 16:49
- Re: Re: change of version string, Mark Lentczner, 15:34
- Re: Are these dns TXT statements ok?, Koen Martens, 08:48
- Are these dns TXT statements ok?, George Young1, 07:47
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 05:23
August 08, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 08/09/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Andy Bakun, 21:56
- Re: Earthlink needs a clue, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:26
- Re: Earthlink needs a clue, Frank Ellermann, 17:48
- Re: Earthlink needs a clue, Frank Ellermann, 17:17
- Re: Earthlink needs a clue, Chris Drake, 16:49
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 16:20
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Frank Ellermann, 15:14
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, John Glube, 11:34
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, John Glube, 11:05
- Earthlink needs a clue, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:43
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Seth Goodman, 02:01
August 07, 2004
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, John Glube, 17:48
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Greg Connor, 16:57
- RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 16:57
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, jpinkerton, 15:42
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, James Couzens, 14:11
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, James Couzens, 14:09
- Re: Re: change of version string, James Couzens, 14:02
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, william(at)elan.net, 13:56
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 13:46
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, David Brodbeck, 09:59
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, David Brodbeck, 09:54
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, Jeremy Harris, 09:53
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, David Brodbeck, 09:50
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, jpinkerton, 09:14
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, Graham Murray, 09:07
- Re: Re: change of version string, Graham Murray, 09:02
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, Meng Weng Wong, 07:29
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 07:20
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 06:35
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, John Keown, 05:40
- Re: Re: change of version string, James Couzens, 05:40
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, James Couzens, 05:18
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, James Couzens, 05:17
- Re: MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, John Keown, 05:10
- MARID sessions - do spammers care about BW?, James Couzens, 05:08
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, jpinkerton, 00:49
August 06, 2004
- RE: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Seth Goodman, 22:24
- Re: change of version string, John Glube, 14:24
- Re: inherited SPF record, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:30
- inherited SPF record, Roger Moser, 12:41
- Re: Re: change of version string, Meng Weng Wong, 10:54
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 09:22
- Re: inherited SPF record, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:02
- Re: Re: change of version string, Meng Weng Wong, 08:51
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, wayne, 07:48
- audio for the two MARID sessions of IETF-60 avaiable via archive, wayne, 07:21
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:00
- Re: RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Paul Howarth, 06:58
- RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, terry, 06:52
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:43
- RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, terry, 06:38
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 04:22
- DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Roger Moser, 01:52
- inherited SPF record, Roger Moser, 01:36
- Re: inherited SPF record, Ralf Doeblitz, 01:29
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:49
August 05, 2004
- Re: Re: change of version string, Mark Lentczner, 22:21
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 21:28
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 20:06
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, wayne, 19:13
- RE: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 19:04
- Re: Re: change of version string, wayne, 18:44
- Re: Re: change of version string, Mark Lentczner, 18:08
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Richard Parker, 18:07
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 17:16
- RE: Re: change of version string, Mark Shewmaker, 16:49
- Re: change of version string, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 16:48
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, David Brodbeck, 16:41
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 16:33
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Lou Katz, 16:22
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 15:55
- Inherited SPF Record - Proposal, marc, 15:28
- RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 15:24
- Re: Re: inherited SPF record, marc, 15:15
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, wayne, 14:50
- RE: Re: change of version string, Seth Goodman, 14:20
- Re: Re: change of version string, Mark Lentczner, 13:58
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, admin, 13:33
- DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Roger Moser, 13:25
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Jonathan Gardner, 12:43
- Re: Re: change of version string, wayne, 10:59
- Re: Re: change of version string, wayne, 10:56
- Re: RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:45
- Re: DNS Wildcards Myth #1, wayne, 09:39
- RE: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 09:18
- DNS Wildcards Myth #1, Meng Weng Wong, 09:18
- Re: inherited SPF record, Chuck Mead, 09:13
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 09:11
- RE: inherited SPF record, Matthew.van.Eerde, 09:09
- Re: So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, Andrew Newton, 09:03
- RE: re: inherited SPF record, Scott Kitterman, 08:57
- Re: inherited SPF record, Graham Murray, 08:35
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, Guillaume Filion, 08:26
- RE: inherited SPF record, Matthew.van.Eerde, 08:23
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, David Brodbeck, 08:23
- Re: re: inherited SPF record, Koen Martens, 08:02
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 07:45
- re: inherited SPF record, systhine, 07:44
- inherited SPF record, Roger Moser, 07:18
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 06:38
- Re: inherited SPF record, Meng Weng Wong, 06:36
- RE: change of version string, Holm, Mark, 06:16
- RE: change of version string, John Glube, 06:13
- Re: RE : inherited SPF record, Michel Bouissou, 06:01
- RE : inherited SPF record, Bourque Daniel, 05:45
- Some statistics, Roger Moser, 05:06
- Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Michel Bouissou, 03:45
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, James Couzens, 03:40
- Re: Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Paul Howarth, 03:39
- Re: Interaction with anti-spam systems, Michel Bouissou, 03:29
- Re: Re: inherited SPF record, Koen Martens, 02:48
- Re: inherited SPF record, Frank Ellermann, 02:30
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 02:21
- Re: inherited SPF record, Jeremy Kister, 01:47
- Re: inherited SPF record, Jeremy Kister, 01:43
- RE: change of version string, James Couzens, 01:32
- Re: inherited SPF record, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:13
- Re: inherited SPF record, Koen Martens, 01:04
- RE: change of version string, Seth Goodman, 00:50
- Re: The bickering, Koen Martens, 00:36
- inherited SPF record, Jeremy Kister, 00:21
August 04, 2004
- RE: Re: change of version string, John Glube, 23:58
- Re: change of version string, Frank Ellermann, 23:14
- change of version string, Meng Weng Wong, 21:14
- So ... did Dewey beat Truman?, John Glube, 21:05
- RE: More stats, James Couzens, 20:36
- A complicated way to tell we do not send mail, David Beveridge, 19:07
- Re: Stats, mholm, 18:34
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, James Couzens, 16:30
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, Robert Storey, 14:43
- The bickering, Brad Glore, 14:40
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Koen Martens, 09:51
- RE: More stats, Andriy G. Tereshchenko, 09:10
- it's morning in san diego, Meng Weng Wong, 08:27
- SPF/FROM-HDR (was: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID), Frank Ellermann, 06:42
- Re: More stats, Daniel Lorch, 06:28
- RE: More stats, terry, 06:26
- Re: More stats, Michel Bouissou, 06:18
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Daniel Lorch, 06:18
- Re: Stats, Michel Bouissou, 06:15
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Koen Martens, 05:56
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Mark, 05:13
- Re: Re: Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, John Keown, 05:12
- Re: Re: Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, wayne, 05:07
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Daniel Lorch, 05:04
- Re: Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:49
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:48
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:47
- Re: Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, wayne, 04:16
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 04:15
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Peter Bowyer, 04:06
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Paul Howarth, 04:02
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 03:55
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Mark, 03:50
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:48
- Re: Distrowatch article on SPF, Koen Martens, 03:40
- Re[2]: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Chris Drake, 03:35
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Frank Ellermann, 03:33
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, wayne, 03:32
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Michel Bouissou, 03:20
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, David Woodhouse, 03:17
- Re: A complicated way to tell we do not send mail, Michel Bouissou, 03:03
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Michel Bouissou, 02:54
- Re: Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Franz J Ehrengruber (iptelenet), 02:31
- www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Roger Moser, 02:01
- Re: www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:33
August 03, 2004
- RE: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Greg Connor, 20:05
- RE: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Scott Kitterman, 13:09
- Re: Re: Multiple txt records?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:56
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Meng Weng Wong, 12:53
- www.DNSreport.com flags missing SPF, John A. Martin, 10:26
- Re: Error from spfd ?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09:09
- Re: Error from spfd ?, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:09
- Re: Error from spfd ?, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:02
- Re: Error from spfd ?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 08:59
- Error from spfd ?, Pedro Alves, 08:44
- Re: Re: Multiple txt records?, wayne, 08:36
- Re: Multiple txt records?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:44
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Daniel Gueniche, 07:28
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:05
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Michel Bouissou, 07:04
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Paul Howarth, 06:59
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Daniel Gueniche, 06:54
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Koen Martens, 06:08
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Daniel Lorch, 05:53
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Daniel Lorch, 05:50
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Ernesto Baschny, 05:42
- Re: SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Koen Martens, 05:22
- SPF in a Shared Hosting Environment (non-ISP) -> "Whitelisting only" records, Daniel Lorch, 05:09
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 05:02
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:00
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Michel Bouissou, 04:16
- Re: Re: Multiple txt records?, wayne, 04:02
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 04:01
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Michel Bouissou, 04:00
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:58
- Re: an other approach for SPF, Paul Howarth, 03:49
- an other approach for SPF, Daniel Gueniche, 03:38
- Re: A complicated way to tell we do not send mail, David Beveridge, 03:06
- Re: Multiple txt records?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:37
- Re: A complicated way to tell we do not send mail, David Beveridge, 02:27
- A complicated way to tell we do not send mail, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:14
August 02, 2004
- META: How to contact the listowners, Greg Connor, 17:32
- Re: Library naming, Greg Connor, 15:53
- Re: Library naming, Meng Weng Wong, 15:23
- RE: Library naming, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:56
- Re: Digest 1.421 for spf-discuss, Jesse Gordon, 13:25
- I had hope (was: Re: Library naming), Marc Kool, 12:53
- Library naming, Roger Moser, 12:33
- Re: Library naming, Christian Brunschen, 11:34
- Re: Multiple txt records?, Koen Martens, 10:37
- Re: Multiple txt records?, James Couzens, 10:30
- Re: Library naming, James Couzens, 10:29
- Re: Multiple txt records?, wayne, 10:18
- Re: Library naming, Christian Brunschen, 09:52
- Re: Multiple txt records?, Dan Durrer, 09:41
- RE: Case Sensitivity, nospam, 09:16
- RE: Case Sensitivity, Michael R. Brumm, 09:13
- Case Sensitivity, Roger Moser, 09:01
- RE: Case Sensitivity, Scott Kitterman, 08:09
- Re: Library naming, James Couzens, 07:43
- Re: Library naming, wayne, 07:42
- Re: Library naming, James Couzens, 07:42
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 07:34
- Re: Library naming, James Couzens, 07:32
- Re: Library naming, David Brodbeck, 07:08
- Re: Library naming, Christian Brunschen, 04:08
- RE: Library naming, Michael R. Brumm, 03:42
- Re: Library naming, Michel Bouissou, 02:49
- Library naming, Roger Moser, 02:45
- Re: Library naming, Ernesto Baschny, 02:31
- Library naming, Christian Brunschen, 02:26
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Koen Martens, 00:11
August 01, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 08/02/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:40
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 16:43
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 16:42
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Michel Bouissou, 16:17
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 15:43
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Michael Weiner, 15:00
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Koen Martens, 13:50
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Michael Weiner, 12:33
- Re: Case Sensitivity, James Couzens, 11:49
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Paul Howarth, 03:46
- Case Sensitivity, Roger Moser, 02:19
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Koen Martens, 02:00
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Michel Bouissou, 00:11
- Re: Case Sensitivity, Michel Bouissou, 00:01