SPF Discuss (date)
September 30, 2004
- Re: Moving forward, Frank Ellermann, 21:22
- RE: The pretty name, william(at)elan.net, 17:32
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), administrator, 16:46
- Re: The pretty name, David Brodbeck, 16:34
- Re: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 16:23
- Re: The pretty name, Neil Brown, 15:57
- Re: The pretty name, Hector Santos, 14:31
- RE: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 14:22
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:12
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:07
- RE: The pretty name, John Glube, 14:05
- Re: The pretty name, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:04
- What is "Unified SPF"? (Was: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:52
- Re: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:48
- RE: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 13:07
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, william(at)elan.net, 12:14
- Re: The pretty name, Mark, 12:03
- Re: The pretty name, Hector Santos, 11:33
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Commerco WebMaster, 11:17
- RE: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 11:09
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:37
- Re: The pretty name, Joe Rhett, 09:51
- RE: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 09:01
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, wayne, 08:43
- Re: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), jamesp, 07:41
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Hector Santos, 06:31
- Re: The pretty name, Carl Hutzler, 04:37
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 04:34
- Re: Moving forward, Chuck Mead, 04:29
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Raymond Neeves, 04:06
- Re: Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:20
- Re: Moving forward, Koen Martens, 01:12
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, william(at)elan.net, 00:48
- RE: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Stefan Engelbert, 00:42
- Re: Moving forward, william(at)elan.net, 00:32
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Roger Moser, 00:11
September 29, 2004
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), william(at)elan.net, 23:58
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Greg Connor, 23:23
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Joe Rhett, 23:09
- SPF Setup, Anthony Ching, 23:08
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Michel Py, 23:04
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Hector Santos, 22:48
- testing my subscription..., Anthony Ching, 22:36
- The pretty name, Michel Py, 22:04
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 21:04
- Re: Moving forward, william(at)elan.net, 16:48
- Moving forward, Mark Lentczner, 15:35
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark Shewmaker, 13:57
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Carl Hutzler, 13:49
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), william(at)elan.net, 13:37
- Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), william(at)elan.net, 13:18
- So where are we?, Seth Kusiak, 12:49
- Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 12:33
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Mark Shewmaker, 12:17
- Re: [SPFTAG] - RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), wayne, 11:58
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, jmacdonald, 11:11
- Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Matthew Elvey, 11:09
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Ugo PARSI, 09:54
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Hector Santos, 08:57
- Re: [SPFTAG] - RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Chris Haynes, 08:41
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Ryan Malayter, 08:40
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Hector Santos, 08:29
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), terry, 08:09
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Stefan Engelbert, 08:00
- Re: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), jpinkerton, 07:59
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, terry, 07:55
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Paul Howarth, 07:44
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Hector Santos, 07:35
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Scott Kitterman, 07:35
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Stefan Engelbert, 07:30
- RE: [SPFTAG] - [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail) - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Stefan Engelbert, 07:26
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, terry, 07:23
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, terry, 07:18
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), terry, 07:15
- [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Roger Moser, 07:12
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, terry, 07:11
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Michel Py, 07:04
- Re: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Chris Haynes, 06:32
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Carl Hutzler, 06:32
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Chris Haynes, 06:30
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, wayne, 06:24
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, David Brodbeck, 06:24
- RE: moving on from MARID, Scott Kitterman, 06:12
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Stefan Engelbert, 06:08
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Scott Kitterman, 05:59
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Carl Hutzler, 04:11
- RE: Re: Resent-*, Tony Finch, 03:52
- Re: Hi, Paul Howarth, 02:57
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark Shewmaker, 02:47
- Hi, Şamil TEMEL, 01:57
- Re: [Maybe Spam] Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:40
September 28, 2004
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark, 22:53
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Graham Murray, 22:44
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Michel Py, 21:49
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Michel Py, 21:28
- MARID: Are Software Patents a Bad Thing?, Chuck Mead, 20:53
- No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Roger Moser, 19:30
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Carl Hutzler, 18:38
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark Shewmaker, 17:19
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 16:45
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 16:41
- RE: Re: Resent-*, Seth Goodman, 14:37
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Commerco WebMaster, 14:29
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 13:55
- RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, John Glube, 13:19
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, jmacdonald, 12:56
- RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 12:53
- RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 12:20
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Justin Mason, 12:12
- RE: Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, Scott Hollenbeck, 11:10
- Article with Microsoft comments on future of Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 11:07
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, wayne, 10:37
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Alan Hodgson, 10:32
- RE: [SPFTAG] - RE: moving on from MARID - Sender is probably forged (SPF Softfail), Stefan Engelbert, 08:28
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark C. Langston, 08:26
- RE: moving on from MARID, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:23
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 07:53
- RE: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Michel Py, 07:00
- Re: Re: Resent-*, Tony Finch, 06:51
- Re: No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Carl Hutzler, 04:13
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic? (Was: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Koen Martens, 02:03
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Koen Martens, 01:33
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Danny Angus, 01:09
- No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Roger Moser, 00:55
- No use of checking RFC2822 headers, Roger Moser, 00:43
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, jpinkerton, 00:16
September 27, 2004
- RE: moving on from MARID, Michel Py, 22:06
- ISPCON 2004, william(at)elan.net, 21:37
- RE: ISPCON 2004, Michel Py, 21:27
- OT: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, terry, 19:19
- Re: Re: Alternative draft for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 18:45
- Re: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Hector Santos, 17:55
- RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 17:55
- RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 17:20
- RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 17:10
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Hector Santos, 16:57
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Len Conrad, 16:21
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Hector Santos, 16:10
- RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Jim Lyon, 15:51
- Re: Resent-*, Frank Ellermann, 15:20
- Re: Resent-*, Frank Ellermann, 15:06
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, Frank Ellermann, 14:40
- Re: Despite all patent and legal issues - a heads up from germany, Frank Ellermann, 14:24
- Re: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, Frank Ellermann, 13:58
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Alan Hodgson, 13:40
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Scott Kitterman, 13:39
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 13:30
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 13:29
- Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Roger Moser, 13:29
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Scott Kitterman, 13:20
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 13:14
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Scott Kitterman, 13:08
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 12:57
- RE: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Scott Kitterman, 12:43
- Re: Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, Douglas Otis, 12:39
- Processed-By (or Transmitted-By) header concept, william(at)elan.net, 12:06
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:49
- Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity, william(at)elan.net, 11:33
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Len Conrad, 10:54
- OT: all this talk of debt, Ryan Malayter, 08:52
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic? (Was: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:43
- Re: How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:25
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 05:26
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 02:28
- Despite all patent and legal issues - a heads up from germany, Jan Wildeboer, 01:22
September 26, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 09/27/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:24
- RE: moving on from MARID, Seth Goodman, 23:23
- Re: How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Devendra Singh, 22:57
- RE: moving on from MARID, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:57
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:44
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:41
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 16:50
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, Commerco WebMaster, 13:52
- Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Michael Hammer, 13:26
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, jpinkerton, 13:03
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Koen Martens, 12:37
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, jpinkerton, 12:20
- Re: Microsoft's email regarding Sender ID Update & Plans (forwarded by request), Koen Martens, 12:02
- Re: How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Koen Martens, 11:50
- Re: Resent-* (was: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03), Stuart D. Gathman, 11:16
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Koen Martens, 11:06
- Separating authentication and reputation (Was: moving on from MARID, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:45
- Checking all identities or letting people choose (Was: moving on from MARID, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:38
- Trying to specify SPF Classic? (Was: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 07:35
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, Tim Meadowcroft, 00:35
- Re: moving on from MARID, Mark, 00:24
September 25, 2004
- Re: moving on from MARID, Greg Connor, 23:12
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 22:41
- moving on from MARID, Roger Moser, 21:38
- RE: Draft Introduction: 1st cut, Michel Py, 21:28
- RE: moving on from MARID, Michel Py, 21:14
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, wayne, 19:00
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, wayne, 18:50
- Re: moving on from MARID, wayne, 18:10
- Re: moving on from MARID, wayne, 18:06
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, John Glube, 17:56
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:40
- Draft Introduction: 1st cut, Chuck Mead, 12:29
- Re: Re: Resent-*, william(at)elan.net, 11:30
- Re: Resent-*, John A. Martin, 10:03
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 09:32
- Re: moving on from MARID, Tony Finch, 08:56
- Re: moving on from MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 07:58
- New resource to continue the anti-patent discussions!, Chuck Mead, 07:17
- Re: How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Devendra Singh, 07:04
- Re: Resent-* (was: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03), Tony Finch, 06:28
- RE: Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, John Glube, 02:19
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 02:09
- How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Roger Moser, 00:53
- Re: Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:47
- Microsoft's email regarding Sender ID Update & Plans (forwarded by request), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:44
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:29
- How to define SPF for a domain with 115 distinct IP Addresses, Devendra Singh, 00:26
September 24, 2004
- Re: Resent-*, Graham Murray, 23:57
- Re: moving on from MARID, Greg Connor, 23:34
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Lloyd Zusman, 23:06
- Re: moving on from MARID, David Brodbeck, 21:29
- RE: moving on from MARID, Michel Py, 21:22
- Re: moving on from MARID, Hector Santos, 21:18
- RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, John Glube, 20:39
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, John Glube, 20:17
- Re: moving on from MARID, william(at)elan.net, 18:42
- Microsoft's email which went out today explaining what happened with MARID, Sender I.D., etc.., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 18:00
- Re: moving on from MARID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:51
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Frank Ellermann, 17:49
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:46
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:39
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:34
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:23
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 17:20
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Frank Ellermann, 17:19
- Resent-* (was: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03), Frank Ellermann, 16:42
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Frank Ellermann, 16:29
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Nick Phillips, 16:15
- Re: Look at that patent application again, Frank Ellermann, 16:02
- Patent Strategy, Jonathan Gardner, 15:58
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, william(at)elan.net, 15:45
- Re: moving on from MARID, Frank Ellermann, 15:43
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Mark, 15:24
- Two reasons why software patents are bad, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:23
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Meng Weng Wong, 15:15
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Frank Ellermann, 15:01
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Koen Martens, 14:51
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, wayne, 13:57
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Jonathan Gardner, 13:30
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Jonathan Gardner, 13:22
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Commerco WebMaster, 12:37
- Re: moving on from MARID, wayne, 11:50
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, wayne, 11:36
- RE: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 11:11
- Re: moving on from MARID, Alan Hodgson, 11:06
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, wayne, 11:02
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Jonathan Gardner, 11:01
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Jonathan Gardner, 10:57
- Re: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Chuck Mead, 10:42
- draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing, Meng Weng Wong, 10:38
- Re: moving on from MARID, william(at)elan.net, 10:29
- RE: moving on from MARID, Scott Kitterman, 10:15
- Re: moving on from MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 09:58
- moving on from MARID, Meng Weng Wong, 09:52
- Re: Look at that patent application again, Holm, Mark, 09:22
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hector Santos, 09:17
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, David, 08:49
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Chuck Mead, 08:30
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Koen Martens, 08:25
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Tony Finch, 08:10
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 08:08
- RE: confused !, Scott Kitterman, 07:34
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Michael Hammer, 07:29
- confused !, Shoaib, 07:24
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:22
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 06:52
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 06:51
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Michael Hammer, 06:41
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 06:32
- RE: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 06:30
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Rodolfo Sikora, 06:09
- Re: Look at that patent application again, Holm, Mark, 06:04
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Koen Martens, 05:51
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Michael Hammer, 05:28
- RE: Disappointed, yet. not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Glube, 03:22
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised, Graham Murray, 03:20
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Koen Martens, 01:58
- Re: Look at that patent application again, Paul Howarth, 00:43
September 23, 2004
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Greg Connor, 21:57
- Re: Does Microsoft's pending patent cover SPF?, wayne, 19:40
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Mark Shewmaker, 19:25
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 19:23
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Mark Shewmaker, 19:20
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 19:18
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 19:17
- survey of SPF records, wayne, 18:50
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 18:41
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 18:36
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Hinton, 18:29
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Len Conrad, 17:56
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Meng Weng Wong, 17:55
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Mark Shewmaker, 17:55
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 17:47
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Dale Ghent, 17:36
- Re: SPF With domain hosting, Len Conrad, 17:34
- SPF With domain hosting, phil, 17:01
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Frank Ellermann, 16:59
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Frank Ellermann, 16:27
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Frank Ellermann, 16:08
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Hinton, 15:55
- Re: Does Microsoft's pending patent cover SPF?, Chuck Mead, 15:52
- Does Microsoft's pending patent cover SPF?, Jonathan Gardner, 14:54
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Jason Gurtz, 14:31
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Jason Gurtz, 14:24
- The Good Domain List, Meng Weng Wong, 14:01
- Look at that patent application again, Holm, Mark, 13:38
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Koen Martens, 12:49
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Kevin Peuhkurinen, 12:27
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), guy, 12:15
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Seth Goodman, 11:44
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), guy, 11:41
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), David Brodbeck, 11:40
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), william(at)elan.net, 11:32
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chip Mefford, 11:16
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 10:44
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:31
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:15
- RE: Two years of work gone., John Glube, 09:52
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 09:27
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 09:18
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Meng Weng Wong, 08:54
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), David Woodhouse, 08:44
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 08:39
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Hinton, 08:36
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), guy, 08:34
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), David Woodhouse, 08:33
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), guy, 08:23
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Stuart D. Gathman, 08:04
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead, 07:54
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:31
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 07:12
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Tony Finch, 06:59
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Tony Finch, 06:44
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, william(at)elan.net, 06:31
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Theo Schlossnagle, 06:19
- Re: Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Andrew W . Donoho, 05:59
- Re: SPF Prior Art?, Andrew W . Donoho, 05:45
- RE: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Scott Kitterman, 05:24
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:07
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03, Frank Ellermann, 00:01
September 22, 2004
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Hector Santos, 23:52
- RE: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Michel Py, 23:48
- Re: SPF Prior Art?, Hector Santos, 22:45
- Re: draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), william(at)elan.net, 21:55
- Re: Re: MARID to close (fwd), Mark, 20:58
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Mark, 20:48
- Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disappointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 20:27
- Two years of work gone., Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:06
- draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 (was: New Drafts), Frank Ellermann, 20:04
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Dave Crocker, 19:09
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Dave Crocker, 17:36
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Frank Ellermann, 16:26
- Re: MARID to close (fwd), csm, 16:13
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Guillaume Filion, 15:37
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Mark, 14:51
- Re: regarding the trademark for "Sender ID", Frank Ellermann, 14:46
- RE: Re: MARID to close, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 14:26
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Guillaume Filion, 14:09
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Guillaume Filion, 13:28
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Dan Brickley, 12:15
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Alan Batie, 11:41
- RE: Re: MARID to close, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:36
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, James Couzens, 11:03
- Re: Re: MARID to close, Guillaume Filion, 10:40
- Re: MARID to close, Meng Weng Wong, 10:19
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Ralf Doeblitz, 09:52
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Rodolfo Sikora, 09:27
- SPF Prior Art?, Andrew W . Donoho, 09:18
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Dave Crocker, 07:41
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Dave Crocker, 07:38
- RE: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:55
- Re: MARID: Life, Microsoft and Evil Intent, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 00:10
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, David, 00:05
September 21, 2004
- Re: MARID: Life, Microsoft and Evil Intent, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 23:53
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 23:44
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Meng Weng Wong, 20:59
- MARID: Life, Microsoft and Evil Intent, Chuck Mead, 20:23
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Chuck Mead, 20:20
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Mark, 17:34
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:32
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:25
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Meng Weng Wong, 16:24
- Re: SPF, SRS, and forwarding, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:19
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Steve Meyers, 16:12
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:53
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Meng Weng Wong, 15:44
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Meng Weng Wong, 15:41
- Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Roger Moser, 15:41
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:31
- Re: SPF, SRS, and forwarding, Bill Maidment, 15:18
- SPF, SRS, and forwarding, Steve Meyers, 14:37
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:09
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Mark, 12:54
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 12:33
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, Marc Kool, 12:00
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Tony Finch, 12:00
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:42
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Dave Crocker, 11:14
- RE: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:16
- RE: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, william(at)elan.net, 10:08
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:08
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Chuck Mead, 08:49
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Paul Iadonisi, 08:45
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Mark, 08:13
- Re: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, Rodolfo Sikora, 08:05
- Re: Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, Peter Bowyer, 08:02
- Is SPF Authenication or Authorization?, jmacdonald, 07:53
- RE: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, guy, 07:28
- Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, william(at)elan.net, 06:25
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, James Couzens, 00:23
September 20, 2004
- Re: skunkworks manifesto for the Aspen Accountable Net, Marcie Alana Lovell, 21:17
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, Marc Kool, 12:40
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, James Couzens, 11:46
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Mark, 09:30
- RE: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 09:16
- Re: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Mark, 09:10
- Kai W Lee/InfoServices/GLOBE is out of the office., lee, 08:58
- Re: defining reputation and accreditation., John A. Martin, 08:35
- RE: Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 06:22
- Re: Policyd not working with Postfix?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:27
- Policyd not working with Postfix?, Morten Trab, 05:15
- Re: defining reputation and accreditation., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 01:35
- Re: defining reputation and accreditation., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 01:21
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Koen Martens, 00:52
September 19, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 09/20/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:44
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:58
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Mike Markley, 18:42
- Re: defining reputation and accreditation., Mark C. Langston, 11:18
- defining reputation and accreditation., Meng Weng Wong, 09:40
- RE: [aspen] Notes from the crystal ball: authentica tion vs policy, MTA vs MUA, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 05:11
- Re: skunkworks manifesto for the Aspen Accountable Net, Tim Meadowcroft, 02:09
September 18, 2004
- Re: [aspen] Notes from the crystal ball: authentication vs policy, MTA vs MUA, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 21:54
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Alan Batie, 15:17
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, John A. Martin, 15:16
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Paul Ficinski, 15:12
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Frank Ellermann, 13:54
- Re: uol.com.br has SPF records!, Frank Ellermann, 13:09
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Alan Batie, 11:54
- [aspen] Notes from the crystal ball: authentication vs policy, MTA vs MUA, Meng Weng Wong, 11:04
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 04:26
- Re: How to Add an SPF Record in Windows DNS (was: spf2 records (microsoft DNS)), Koen Martens, 04:06
- Re: libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, Paul Howarth, 01:37
- libspf2-1.0.4: inconsistent spfquery/pobox messages?, dave(_at_)watersheep(_dot_)org, 01:17
- Re: Get out your scalpels, Paul Howarth, 00:57
- Re: uol.com.br has SPF records!, Paul Howarth, 00:53
September 17, 2004
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 20:25
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 18:35
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, David Brodbeck, 17:28
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, David Woodhouse, 16:47
- minor comments on draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03.txt, Nate Leon, 16:14
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Jonathan Gardner, 15:41
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 15:14
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 15:13
- Re: uol.com.br has SPF records!, Mike, 14:41
- Get out your scalpels, mholm, 14:15
- uol.com.br has SPF records!, Rodolfo Sikora, 14:03
- RE: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, guy, 14:01
- RE: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 12:38
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Jonathan Gardner, 12:12
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Mark Shewmaker, 11:52
- Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, David Brodbeck, 11:31
- RE: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 11:12
- RE: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, guy, 10:58
- skunkworks manifesto for the Aspen Accountable Net, Meng Weng Wong, 09:18
- Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL, Scott Kitterman, 09:17
- RE: Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Scott Kitterman, 08:54
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Scott Kitterman, 08:49
- Re: Patent Application 683624, Frank Ellermann, 08:31
- RE: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-iet f-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 08:29
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Tony Finch, 08:13
- How to Add an SPF Record in Windows DNS (was: spf2 records (microsoft DNS)), Michael R. Brumm, 06:58
- Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:49
- Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Daniel Quinlan, 00:40
September 16, 2004
- Re: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Meng Weng Wong, 22:58
- Re: Patent Application 683624, Douglas Otis, 22:51
- Re: "include" directive in -03 SPF draft, Meng Weng Wong, 22:20
- RE: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Scott Kitterman, 20:10
- Re: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Mark C. Langston, 20:07
- Re: Patent Application 683624, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 19:52
- Re: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Meng Weng Wong, 19:49
- RE: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Scott Kitterman, 19:47
- Re: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Meng Weng Wong, 19:41
- RE: call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Scott Kitterman, 19:28
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Scott Kitterman, 19:19
- Patent Application 683624, Meng Weng Wong, 19:17
- call for volunteers: need someone to write a stunt DNS server, Meng Weng Wong, 18:18
- Re: Am I nuts?, Frank Ellermann, 17:51
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:22
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:09
- Re: more from paul roberts, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:58
- Re: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 15:49
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, guy, 15:22
- Re: Am I nuts?, Holm, Mark, 14:29
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Scott Kitterman, 13:39
- Re: Am I nuts?, Michael Hammer, 13:38
- Re: Am I nuts?, Chuck Mead, 13:27
- Am I nuts?, Holm, Mark, 13:22
- RE: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Seth Goodman, 13:11
- Re: SPF covered by Microsoft Patent App (was Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 13:10
- RE: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 13:09
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, Meng Weng Wong, 12:59
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, wayne, 12:53
- RE: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Seth Goodman, 12:52
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Jonathan Gardner, 12:45
- Re: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 12:25
- Re: A very interesting article on Microsoft's active lobbying agenda regarding spam and against open source, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 12:23
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:22
- RE: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Seth Goodman, 12:17
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Seth Goodman, 11:50
- Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 11:08
- Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Holm, Mark, 11:02
- Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Holm, Mark, 10:49
- Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Andrew Newton, 10:36
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Meng Weng Wong, 10:16
- Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 09:20
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:19
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, william(at)elan.net, 07:25
- Re: Patent Applications by Microsoft, David Woodhouse, 07:01
- Patent Applications by Microsoft, william(at)elan.net, 06:59
- Re: more from paul roberts, Jan Wildeboer, 02:04
- A very interesting article on Microsoft's active lobbying agenda regarding spam and against open source, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 01:29
September 15, 2004
- Re: ptr specs, Frank Ellermann, 22:03
- "AOL Dumps Sender I.D.", Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 21:55
- Re: HELO and Unified, Frank Ellermann, 20:28
- FTC Email Authentication Summit Nov 9,10 Washington DC, Carl Hutzler, 18:13
- RE: Re: HELO and Unified, guy, 17:24
- RE: Re: HELO and Unified, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:00
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 15:21
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, David Brodbeck, 15:18
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, Alan Hodgson, 15:17
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 15:12
- RE: Re: HELO and Unified, guy, 15:12
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Guy, 15:12
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Seth Goodman, 15:00
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 14:56
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, Seth Goodman, 14:14
- Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 13:48
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Jonathan Gardner, 13:42
- Interesting notes from a footsoldier, Holm, Mark, 13:37
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, David Brodbeck, 13:36
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:31
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Rik van Riel, 13:24
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, Seth Goodman, 13:10
- SPF-compliant phishing?, Roger Moser, 13:10
- RE: Observations on SPF record publishing in .edu, guy, 12:49
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 12:30
- RE: Re: HELO and Unified, Seth Goodman, 12:11
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:56
- Observations on SPF record publishing in .edu, Holm, Mark, 11:45
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, guy, 10:38
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, David Woodhouse, 10:33
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 10:30
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 10:27
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 10:21
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Tony Finch, 10:17
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Rik van Riel, 10:07
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Meng Weng Wong, 10:00
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 09:26
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Daniel Taylor, 08:55
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 08:55
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, David Woodhouse, 08:47
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:45
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 08:31
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 08:29
- Re: more from paul roberts, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:12
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Daniel Taylor, 08:03
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:56
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 07:10
- RE: SPF-compliant phishing?, guy, 07:02
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, Paul Bissex, 06:53
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Daniel Taylor, 06:49
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, Holm, Mark, 06:48
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, David Brodbeck, 06:41
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 06:37
- SPF-compliant phishing?, Roger Moser, 06:22
- Re: SPF-compliant phishing?, Daniel Taylor, 05:09
- Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 04:57
- SPF-compliant phishing?, David Woodhouse, 01:26
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Paul Howarth, 00:33
September 14, 2004
- Re: Re: HELO and Unified, Marc Kool, 22:39
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Meng Weng Wong, 20:16
- Re: HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 20:08
- more from paul roberts, Meng Weng Wong, 20:07
- Re: MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, Douglas K. Fischer, 19:31
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Jonathan Gardner, 14:41
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Jonathan Gardner, 14:39
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:13
- Re: MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, Chuck Mead, 07:30
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Holm, Mark, 07:18
- RE: txt SPF record with cname, Guy, 07:07
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:02
- SPF record publishing rate, Holm, Mark, 06:07
- RE: txt SPF record with cname, Scott Kitterman, 05:17
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:50
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Graham Murray, 03:49
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Koen Martens, 03:32
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Graham Murray, 00:10
September 13, 2004
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Fridrik Skulason, 22:08
- RE: txt SPF record with cname, guy, 19:48
- Re: txt SPF record with cname, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:40
- txt SPF record with cname, guy, 19:32
- Re: MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, Guillaume Filion, 19:13
- Re: MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, Chuck Mead, 18:01
- Re: MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, Guillaume Filion, 17:51
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 16:33
- MARID Co-Chairs Clarify Concensus Statement, csm, 16:33
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, David Brodbeck, 15:16
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Fridrik Skulason, 15:09
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, guy, 14:14
- Re: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Koen Martens, 13:59
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, guy, 13:53
- Re: Re: ptr specs, Koen Martens, 13:37
- RE: SPF & proxy filters, David Brodbeck, 13:35
- RE: SPF adoptees, Shoaib, 13:34
- Re: Fw: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, David Brodbeck, 13:19
- Re: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Jonathan Gardner, 13:17
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Alan Hodgson, 13:06
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Jonathan Gardner, 13:03
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, David Brodbeck, 12:49
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Paul Howarth, 12:48
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Jonathan Gardner, 12:41
- MS anti-spam proposal returned to sender, Karl Prince, 12:21
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Frank Ellermann, 10:07
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Frank Ellermann, 09:24
- Re: SPF adoptees, michael, 07:16
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Scott Kitterman, 05:43
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:25
September 12, 2004
- Re: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Graham Murray, 23:57
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 09/13/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:29
- Re: SPF & proxy filters, Rene Barbier, 22:44
- Re: SPF adoptees, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 22:14
- Re: spam from pobox, Rodolfo Sikora, 18:33
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Frank Ellermann, 15:14
- Re: SPF adoptees, Frank Ellermann, 14:15
- RE: SPF adoptees, william(at)elan.net, 10:58
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Seth Goodman, 10:25
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Peter Bowyer, 08:41
- Re: A really balanced and thorough article about SPF, Peter Bowyer, 08:38
- RE: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 08:34
- Re: spam from pobox, David Woodhouse, 03:02
September 11, 2004
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Scott Kitterman, 20:27
- RE: SPF adoptees, Anne P. Mitchell, 17:26
- RE: SPF adoptees, Seth Goodman, 17:00
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Seth Goodman, 16:18
- Re: The Jig Is Up!, Douglas K. Fischer, 14:53
- Re: The Jig Is Up!, Chuck Mead, 13:13
- Re: The Jig Is Up!, wayne, 13:07
- The Jig Is Up!, Chuck Mead, 12:51
- Re: spam from pobox, Meng Weng Wong, 12:44
- RE: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Michael R. Brumm, 12:42
- Re: spam from pobox, John Keown, 09:29
- Of Standards Bodies, Competitive Wedgies and Marbles?, Chuck Mead, 08:55
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Fridrik Skulason, 02:45
September 10, 2004
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 23:24
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:33
- Re: Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:24
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Frank Ellermann, 21:11
- RE: SPF & proxy filters, guy, 20:48
- Re: SPF adoptees, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 19:34
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 16:53
- Re: SPF adoptees, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:46
- A really balanced and thorough article about SPF, Holm, Mark, 14:31
- RE: SPF adoptees, Michael R. Brumm, 14:29
- Re: SPF adoptees, Alan Hodgson, 14:26
- RE: Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Seth Goodman, 14:23
- Re: SPF adoptees, Jonathan Gardner, 14:22
- Re: SPF adoptees, Paul Howarth, 13:55
- Re: SPF adoptees, John Keown, 13:53
- Re: SPF adoptees, Paul Howarth, 13:48
- Re: SPF & proxy filters, Jonathan Gardner, 13:13
- Re: SPF adoptees, Jonathan Gardner, 13:10
- Re: Concerns on SPF Unified, Frank Ellermann, 12:53
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 12:30
- RE : SPF & proxy filters, Bourque Daniel, 12:29
- Re: SPF adoptees, John Keown, 12:22
- Re: SPF adoptees, John Keown, 12:21
- Re: SPF adoptees, Meng Weng Wong, 12:04
- RE: SPF adoptees, Scott Kitterman, 11:52
- SPF & proxy filters, Kevin Peuhkurinen, 11:48
- Re: SPF adoptees, Daniel Taylor, 11:36
- Re: SPF adoptees, John Keown, 11:12
- Concerns on SPF Unified, Jonathan Gardner, 10:58
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Jonathan Gardner, 10:25
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 08:55
- RE: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Scott Kitterman, 08:33
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, Holm, Mark, 07:39
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 06:29
- RE: spf policy for localhost and false helo of receiver address, guy, 06:28
- RE: spf policy for localhost and false helo of receiver address, guy, 06:22
- RE: Re: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 06:17
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:52
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:51
- Re: spf policy for localhost and false helo of receiver address, Koen Martens, 05:34
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 03:58
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 03:26
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 02:56
- spf policy for localhost and false helo of receiver address, Roger Moser, 02:56
- spf policy for localhost and false helo of receiver address, Scott Taylor, 02:21
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:34
September 09, 2004
- Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 23:19
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, AccuSpam, 23:03
- Re: SPF Website links - Disclaimer wording ideas, spf, 22:43
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Meng Weng Wong, 22:08
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Mark, 20:36
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, AccuSpam, 20:26
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Meng Weng Wong, 20:23
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Meng Weng Wong, 20:16
- agupimail: examples of various return codes, Meng Weng Wong, 20:11
- Re: Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist: bugfix, Meng Weng Wong, 19:53
- Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing a personal whitelist, Meng Weng Wong, 19:37
- Re: Fw: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Greg Wooledge, 19:10
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 19:07
- Re: Spam undetectable by SPF (domain reputation) or Bayesian (content)?, AccuSpam, 18:56
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Frank Ellermann, 17:45
- Re: ptr specs, Frank Ellermann, 17:33
- Re: from MARID: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Frank Ellermann, 17:23
- Re: SPF validator, Frank Ellermann, 16:44
- Re: Fw: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, David Woodhouse, 15:18
- Re: Cloudmark calls it Microsoft's Sender ID (was Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF), Steven Earl Smith, 14:28
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 14:23
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jmacdonald, 14:23
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jmacdonald, 14:22
- Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 13:55
- RE: SPF abused by spammers, Michael R. Brumm, 13:43
- Cloudmark calls it Microsoft's Sender ID (was Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF), Jonathan Gardner, 13:08
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Steven Earl Smith, 12:14
- Inaccurate news articles: an opportunity to spread truth., Holm, Mark, 11:07
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:27
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Jonathan Gardner, 10:20
- RE: SPF Website links - Disclaimer wording ideas, guy, 10:11
- RE: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, guy, 10:01
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Holm, Mark, 09:58
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 09:53
- SPF Website links - Disclaimer wording ideas, Jon Bertrand, 09:38
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, william(at)elan.net, 09:23
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, Matthew.van.Eerde, 09:09
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Koen Martens, 08:52
- RE: Fw: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 08:40
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, Guy, 08:39
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Aredridel, 08:28
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 08:28
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Mark, 08:27
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 08:24
- RE: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, guy, 07:53
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Chuck Mead, 07:51
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Mark, 07:38
- Re: Fw: Wildcard DNS entry, william(at)elan.net, 07:14
- Re: Fw: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Paul Howarth, 06:40
- FreeBSD postfix port spf+tls, Patrick Oonk, 06:35
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Koen Martens, 06:06
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Koen Martens, 06:04
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, John A. Martin, 05:38
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Koen Martens, 04:35
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, David Woodhouse, 02:54
- Fw: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 02:43
- Fw: Wildcard DNS entry, jpinkerton, 02:41
- Re: View from the trenches, Koen Martens, 01:34
- Wildcard DNS entry, Roger Moser, 00:18
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Paul Howarth, 00:14
September 08, 2004
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, william(at)elan.net, 23:17
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, AccuSpam, 22:03
- RE: Wildcard DNS entry, Guy, 20:41
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Mark, 18:42
- Re: Wildcard DNS entry, Meng Weng Wong, 17:33
- RE: PTR usage, Suneel Jhangiani, 17:27
- PTR usage, Suneel Jhangiani, 17:15
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Greg Wooledge, 16:25
- Wildcard DNS entry, guy, 16:01
- Re: SPF validator, AccuSpam, 15:57
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, AccuSpam, 15:52
- RE: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Matthew.van.Eerde, 15:46
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, mholm, 15:43
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Jonathan Gardner, 15:12
- Re: Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, mholm, 14:51
- Re: SPF validator, Meng Weng Wong, 14:33
- RE: SPF validator, Shoaib, 14:06
- RE: SPF validator, Shoaib, 13:59
- Re: View from the trenches, jpinkerton, 13:44
- Re: Good News, bad news re: SPF record publishing rate, jpinkerton, 13:42
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Alan Batie, 13:42
- Re: from MARID: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:34
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Rodolfo Sikora, 13:25
- Re: Good News, bad news re: SPF record publishing rate, Gustavo Badauy, 13:17
- Seattle Perl User's Group presentation on SPF, Jonathan Gardner, 12:11
- Re: View from the trenches, Koen Martens, 11:56
- Re: SPF validator, Koen Martens, 11:49
- RE: SPF validator, Shoaib, 11:46
- RE: SPF validator, Scott Kitterman, 11:45
- Re: SPF validator, Koen Martens, 11:44
- Re: View from the trenches, bob, 11:38
- Re: View from the trenches, Koen Martens, 11:27
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:27
- Re: SPF validator, Paul Bissex, 10:26
- RE: a suggestion regarding list volume, Scott Kitterman, 08:56
- Re: View from the trenches, Chuck Mead, 08:28
- Re: SPF validator, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:20
- SPF validator, Koen Martens, 08:15
- RE: View from the trenches, terry, 08:09
- RE: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Guy, 08:01
- Re: Re: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Tim Kennedy, 07:32
- View from the trenches, bob, 07:29
- Re: from MARID: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chris Haynes, 07:22
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Meng Weng Wong, 07:18
- Re: from MARID: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Meng Weng Wong, 07:17
- Re: Re: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Tim Kennedy, 07:14
- from MARID: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Meng Weng Wong, 07:13
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Holm, Mark, 07:02
- Groklaw Article on Sender-ID (Mentions SPF), Scott Kitterman, 06:57
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Tim Kennedy, 06:45
- Good News, bad news re: SPF record publishing rate, Holm, Mark, 06:41
- ptr specs, Koen Martens, 06:19
- RE: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, terry, 05:31
- RE: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, terry, 05:27
- RE: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, terry, 05:15
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 03:29
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Mark, 03:27
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Mark, 03:16
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Koen Martens, 03:06
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Koen Martens, 03:02
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Mark, 02:53
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Chris Haynes, 02:53
- Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Roger Moser, 02:52
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Paul Howarth, 02:48
- argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Roger Moser, 02:48
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 02:39
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Paul Howarth, 02:06
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, jpinkerton, 02:02
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 01:59
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Michel Bouissou, 01:53
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Paul Howarth, 01:45
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Paul Howarth, 01:41
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Koen Martens, 01:35
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 01:22
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Paul Howarth, 00:52
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 00:15
September 07, 2004
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, AccuSpam, 23:05
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, David B. Evans, 19:10
- Re: argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 19:00
- argh ... I wish people would RTFRFC, Meng Weng Wong, 18:44
- Re: lightweight CSV, Dave Crocker, 14:50
- MyDomain.com allows TXT publishing, Jonathan Gardner, 09:24
- lightweight CSV, Tony Finch, 08:29
- ISP/Hosting Provider adds support for SPF, Tim Kennedy, 07:40
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Meng Weng Wong, 07:30
- Re: re: BBC - I take it all back (sigh!), Peter Bowyer, 07:22
- re: BBC - I take it all back (sigh!), Holm, Mark, 06:32
- RE : BBC - I take it all back (sigh!), Bourque Daniel, 06:10
- BBC - I take it all back (sigh!), Peter Bowyer, 05:28
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, jpinkerton, 00:58
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Peter Bowyer, 00:07
September 06, 2004
- Re: Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, Michael Weiner, 17:38
- Google's gmail.com checks spf records!, guy, 16:25
- RE: DNS can re-order txt records, guy, 13:47
- RE: SPF makes the BBC, terry, 13:35
- DNS can re-order txt records, Roger Moser, 13:33
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Meng Weng Wong, 13:09
- DNS can re-order txt records, guy, 13:03
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, David Brodbeck, 11:42
- moongroup.com on the MARID Sender-ID licensing debacle, Chuck Mead, 10:16
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Koen Martens, 02:06
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Peter Bowyer, 01:55
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, jpinkerton, 01:48
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Chris Haynes, 01:06
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Graham Murray, 00:43
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Koen Martens, 00:27
September 05, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 09/06/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: SPF makes the BBC, Peter Bowyer, 22:46
- Proactive checking of SPF errors? (RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:30
- SPF makes the BBC, Chris Haynes, 11:37
- Debian Announces rejection of Sender-ID, Tim Kennedy, 08:07
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Koen Martens, 07:12
- RE: Apache Foundation and SenderID, terry, 05:18
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Koen Martens, 03:23
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Paul Howarth, 02:27
September 04, 2004
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Mike Markley, 20:53
- Fwd: DEPLOY: Debian project unable to deploy Sender ID, Greg Wooledge, 17:04
- RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, terry, 14:48
- Re: the truth (was: Re: [spf-discuss] Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains), Koen Martens, 14:36
- RE: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, terry, 14:35
- SPF Record Publishing Rate, mholm, 14:31
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:45
- Re: Sender-ID in Turmoil (updated), Chuck Mead, 12:25
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:16
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Paul Howarth, 12:10
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Paul Iadonisi, 11:27
- Sender-ID in Turmoil (updated), Chuck Mead, 10:59
- Main Menu Home News Articles Library Downloads Csm's blog (separate login) Mailing Lists FAQ Contact Us Consulting, Chuck Mead, 10:54
- RE: spfv1 and spf2/pra, terry, 10:00
- RE: spfv1 and spf2/pra, terry, 09:52
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, Michael Weiner, 09:00
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, Mark, 08:53
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Mark, 08:40
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, Paul Howarth, 08:36
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Paul Howarth, 08:33
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, Michael Weiner, 08:18
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Rodolfo Sikora, 08:15
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, Paul Howarth, 08:02
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Paul Howarth, 07:58
- Re: spfv1 and spf2/pra, william(at)elan.net, 07:29
- spfv1 and spf2/pra, Michael Weiner, 06:50
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Koen Martens, 06:42
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:40
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Koen Martens, 06:09
- Re: Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Mark, 05:45
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Koen Martens, 05:34
- Am I interpreting the spec wrong?, Paul Howarth, 05:19
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Ralf Doeblitz, 00:07
September 03, 2004
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Douglas K. Fischer, 22:01
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Meng Weng Wong, 21:29
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Douglas K. Fischer, 21:04
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:26
- RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Holm, Mark, 14:28
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, John Hinton, 14:14
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Rodolfo Sikora, 14:13
- neutral blacklist and rhsbl, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:07
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, AccuSpam, 13:57
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Meng Weng Wong, 13:30
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, AccuSpam, 13:17
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Jonathan Gardner, 13:03
- news note, Chuck Mead, 13:02
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Mark C. Langston, 12:43
- RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Ryan Malayter, 12:37
- RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, guy, 12:07
- RE: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Guy, 12:01
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, David Brodbeck, 11:51
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, jpinkerton, 10:48
- RE: Apache Foundation and SenderID, guy, 10:38
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, jpinkerton, 10:33
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Jonathan Gardner, 10:10
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Ryan Malayter, 09:29
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, James Couzens, 09:18
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Paul Iadonisi, 09:02
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Philip Gladstone, 08:27
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Chip Mefford, 08:25
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, jpinkerton, 07:13
- Re: RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Rodolfo Sikora, 07:12
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, David Brodbeck, 06:48
- RE: SPF Record Publishing Rate, Holm, Mark, 05:53
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, AccuSpam, 02:38
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, jpinkerton, 02:04
- RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Seth Goodman, 01:55
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Graham Murray, 01:08
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Koen Martens, 00:31
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Graham Murray, 00:00
September 02, 2004
- RE: Apache Foundation and SenderID, guy, 23:06
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Marc Kool, 22:32
- Re[2]: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Bradley D. Thornton, 21:30
- RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Seth Goodman, 19:57
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, AccuSpam, 19:00
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Mark, 17:24
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Alan Madill, 16:34
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Catherine Hampton, 15:56
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, John Keown, 15:50
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Jonathan Gardner, 15:27
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:20
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, jpinkerton, 15:15
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:15
- Re: the truth (was: Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains), jpinkerton, 15:09
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Catherine Hampton, 15:04
- Re: the truth (was: Re: [spf-discuss] Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains), Koen Martens, 14:57
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Koen Martens, 14:53
- Re: the truth (was: Re: [spf-discuss] Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains), Tim Kennedy, 14:36
- the truth (was: Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains), Marc Kool, 14:14
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, jpinkerton, 14:05
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Paul Iadonisi, 13:52
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, James Couzens, 13:37
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Jonathan Gardner, 13:05
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Koen Martens, 11:26
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Koen Martens, 11:21
- Re: List of registrars/DNS providers supporting TXT fields - WAS Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Koen Martens, 11:19
- Apache Foundation and SenderID, Jake S, 09:55
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Ryan Malayter, 08:59
- SPF Record Publishing Rate, Holm, Mark, 08:16
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Scott Kitterman, 07:58
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Alan Hodgson, 07:53
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Scott Kitterman, 07:47
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Alan Hodgson, 07:42
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Koen Martens, 07:41
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Stefan Engelbert, 07:31
- RE: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Guy, 07:24
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., David Brodbeck, 07:24
- List of registrars/DNS providers supporting TXT fields - WAS Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, jpinkerton, 06:51
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Chip Mefford, 05:57
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Tim Kennedy, 05:38
- Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Roger Moser, 04:27
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Maxime Guillaud, 01:28
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Graham Murray, 01:25
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, jpinkerton, 00:15
September 01, 2004
- Re[2]: Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Chris Drake, 23:49
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Koen Martens, 23:44
- Re: Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, AccuSpam, 22:32
- Re: Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, AccuSpam, 21:20
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, AccuSpam, 20:10
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Lloyd Zusman, 20:05
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, David Brodbeck, 19:40
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Mark, 16:39
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Mark, 16:31
- Re: Sapmmer adopt SPF first, Paul Bissex, 15:46
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, Jonathan Gardner, 15:41
- RE: Sapmmer adopt SPF first, william(at)elan.net, 15:38
- Re: Sapmmer adopt SPF first, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:09
- RE: Sapmmer adopt SPF first, Matthew.van.Eerde, 14:58
- Sapmmer adopt SPF first, John Keown, 14:54
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, jpinkerton, 14:21
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Jonathan Gardner, 14:09
- Re: Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, jpinkerton, 14:06
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Jonathan Gardner, 14:06
- Microsoft released more info Aug 30, 2004, guy, 13:48
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, AccuSpam, 13:31
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Paul Iadonisi, 13:12
- RE: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, terry, 13:02
- Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Koen Martens, 12:59
- Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains, Paul Bissex, 12:41
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., AccuSpam, 11:48
- Re: Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:48
- RE: Antigen forwarded attachment, David Tschan, 09:08
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Stefan Engelbert, 08:13
- RE: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., guy, 07:53
- NEWS: GoDaddy will support SenderID, wayne, 07:53
- Re: Antigen forwarded attachment, jpinkerton, 07:13
- Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Lloyd Zusman, 07:09
- Re: Antigen forwarded attachment, Peter Bowyer, 06:58
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., David Brodbeck, 06:46
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., jpinkerton, 06:24
- Antigen forwarded attachment, postmaster, 05:11
- Re[2]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier., Chris Drake, 02:15
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Paul Howarth, 02:15
- Re: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Chris Drake, 02:11
- Re[4]: Re: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support inCourier., Chris Drake, 02:05
- Re: Sender ID and Return Path, jpinkerton, 01:38