SPF Discuss (date)
October 31, 2004
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Greg Connor, 22:44
- Re: Yet another poll: SenderID/PRA topics, Greg Connor, 22:26
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Scott Kitterman, 21:03
- Re: Yet another poll: SenderID/PRA topics, wayne, 20:54
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Scott Kitterman, 20:53
- RE: Yet another poll: SenderID/PRA topics, Scott Kitterman, 20:40
- Yet another poll: SenderID/PRA topics, Greg Connor, 20:29
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, Greg Connor, 19:52
- Re: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, Greg Connor, 19:09
- RE: Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list, Seth Goodman, 17:03
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, j o a r, 12:06
- Re: Re: A delightfully novel idea, marc, 11:52
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, James Couzens, 11:50
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, j o a r, 11:46
- Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 10:45
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, wayne, 10:30
- Re: A delightfully novel idea, marc, 08:23
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Chris Haynes, 08:15
- A delightfully novel idea, Roger Moser, 08:11
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Meng Weng Wong, 08:08
- A delightfully novel idea, James Couzens, 07:48
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, James Couzens, 07:42
- RE: Re: purely dual-format approach, guy, 06:55
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, jpinkerton, 01:34
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, jpinkerton, 01:31
October 30, 2004
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Roger Moser, 23:59
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, Andy Bakun, 22:53
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Andy Bakun, 21:48
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Paul Iadonisi, 20:12
- Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 18:29
- Re: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, Frank Ellermann, 17:08
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 16:06
- Re: Re: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, william(at)elan.net, 15:53
- Re: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, Frank Ellermann, 15:23
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 14:32
- RE: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, Mark Shewmaker, 14:15
- Re: [OT] halloween costume, wayne, 14:11
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 13:58
- RE: Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 13:40
- RE: Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, guy, 13:27
- Re: [OT] halloween costume, Don Koch, 13:13
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 13:00
- Using "v=spf1/scope1,scope2,scope3 " as a scoping syntax, Mark Shewmaker, 12:58
- Re: [OT] halloween costume, Alan Madill, 12:56
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 12:47
- Re: [OT] halloween costume, Michael Hammer, 12:39
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Michael Hammer, 12:34
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 12:34
- [OT] halloween costume, Meng Weng Wong, 12:21
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Roger Moser, 12:07
- RE: Re: purely dual-format approach, guy, 12:01
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 11:47
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 11:16
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 09:32
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Roger Moser, 08:58
- Re: purely dual-format approach, wayne, 08:01
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 07:16
- RE: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Richard Bang, 07:06
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 06:32
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Roger Moser, 06:27
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 06:01
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Frank Ellermann, 05:54
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 05:19
- Re: Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 05:10
- Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 05:04
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 05:01
- [Fwd: Re: Thanks :)], Mike, 04:53
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 04:47
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Frank Ellermann, 04:34
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Chris Haynes, 04:20
- Re: My SPF Charter Proposal, william(at)elan.net, 04:08
- Re: purely dual-format approach, william(at)elan.net, 03:47
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Roger Moser, 03:15
- Re: purely dual-format approach, jpinkerton, 03:13
- Re: purely dual-format approach, jpinkerton, 03:11
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Chris Haynes, 02:54
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Chris Haynes, 02:41
- Re: My SPF Charter Proposal, Koen Martens, 02:23
- Re: purely dual-format approach, jpinkerton, 02:12
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Chris Haynes, 01:00
October 29, 2004
- Re: purely dual-format approach, Meng Weng Wong, 23:31
- purely dual-format approach, Meng Weng Wong, 23:02
- Re: RE: inconsistent advice and unpredictable results, Meng Weng Wong, 22:56
- RE: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, John Glube, 20:44
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, Frank Ellermann, 16:58
- Re: pobox DNS issues?, Koen Martens, 16:24
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, wayne, 15:07
- Re: Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, wayne, 15:01
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, wayne, 14:15
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, Michael Hammer, 14:06
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, Frank Ellermann, 14:06
- RE: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, Brian Barrios, 13:53
- RE: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, guy, 13:47
- Re: SES, Frank Ellermann, 13:43
- Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list (was Re: SES), Mark, 13:18
- Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list (was Re: SES), James Couzens, 13:02
- Re: Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, wayne, 12:48
- Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list (was Re: SES), jpinkerton, 12:48
- Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list (was Re: SES), jpinkerton, 12:36
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Michael Hammer, 12:23
- Re: RE: spf2.0/pra next to v=spf1, Andy Bakun, 11:35
- RE: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Julian Mehnle, 11:28
- RE: spf2.0/pra next to v=spf1, Julian Mehnle, 11:26
- RE: inconsistent advice and unpredictable results, Julian Mehnle, 11:25
- Re: Moved to SES-DEVEL list, Frank Ellermann, 11:10
- Moved to SES-DEVEL list (was Re: SES), James Couzens, 10:54
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Frank Ellermann, 10:23
- spf2.0/pra next to v=spf1, Andy Bakun, 10:13
- inconsistent advice and unpredictable results was(RE: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?), Robert Barclay, 09:58
- RE: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Julian Mehnle, 09:56
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:28
- pobox DNS issues?, James Couzens, 09:22
- Agenda for FTC/NIST Email Authentication Summit, Michael Hammer, 08:23
- Re: Re: SES, Theo Schlossnagle, 06:38
- Re: SES, Frank Ellermann, 06:15
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Guy, 06:07
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Michael Hammer, 05:42
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Frank Ellermann, 05:28
- Re: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, Frank Ellermann, 04:47
- Re: SPF List Forums available as NewsGroups, Frank Ellermann, 03:20
- SPF List Forums available as NewsGroups, Hector Santos, 00:38
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Hector Santos, 00:09
October 28, 2004
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Greg Connor, 21:43
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, guy, 21:36
- Re: RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Greg Connor, 21:15
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Douglas K. Fischer, 20:09
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Julian Mehnle, 17:33
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, James Couzens, 16:28
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, James Couzens, 16:27
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Greg Connor, 16:00
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, william(at)elan.net, 15:18
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Andrew W . Donoho, 15:10
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, Guy, 14:50
- RE: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Robert Barclay, 13:46
- Re: SPF validation tools, Koen Martens, 13:32
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, James Couzens, 13:23
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Michael Hammer, 12:26
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, jpinkerton, 11:33
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Rand Wacker, 10:34
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Roy Badami, 10:32
- SES (was Re: Sender ID in the news), James Couzens, 10:29
- RE: SUGGESTION: No more ad-hominem attacks., Julian Mehnle, 09:55
- SPF validation tools, Meng Weng Wong, 09:27
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Jeff Macdonald, 08:43
- Re: Explain, Greg Connor, 08:30
- Re: Explain, Mike, 07:46
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Hector Santos, 07:40
- Re: Sender ID in the news, David, 07:38
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Michael Hammer, 07:36
- RE: SUGGESTION: No more ad-hominem attacks., Steven Foster, 07:26
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Richard Bang, 07:23
- Re: SUGGESTION: No more ad-hominem attacks., David Woodhouse, 07:13
- Re: Sender ID in the news, David, 07:10
- Farewell friends! long live SPF!, Jeremy Pullicino, 06:46
- Re: Explain, M Z Rahman, 06:42
- Re: New Sender-ID draft, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:47
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Julian Mehnle, 05:42
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, william(at)elan.net, 03:16
- Re: Explain, Mike, 03:02
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Graham Murray, 02:22
- Re: Unity, organisation and information for the masses, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:44
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 00:34
- Re: Meta: Managing the list, Greg Connor, 00:21
- Re: Explain, M Z Rahman, 00:00
October 27, 2004
- Re: Meta: Managing the list, Hector Santos, 23:50
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, Greg Connor, 23:12
- Meta: Managing the list, Greg Connor, 22:42
- RE: Unity, organisation and information for themasses, guy, 22:00
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 21:54
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Seth Goodman, 21:13
- My SPF Charter Proposal, James Couzens, 20:42
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, James Couzens, 20:19
- Re: Unity, organisation and information for the masses, James Couzens, 20:11
- Re: Carrying on with the SPF project, this time with a clear charter, Meng Weng Wong, 19:52
- Re: Sender ID in the news, James Couzens, 19:45
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, James Couzens, 19:36
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, James Couzens, 19:26
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, John Birrell, 19:26
- Re: Carrying on with the SPF project, this time with a clear charter, Lloyd Zusman, 18:12
- Carrying on with the SPF project, this time with a clear charter, Julian Mehnle, 17:45
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Meng Weng Wong, 15:18
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Meng Weng Wong, 15:13
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 15:03
- Forwarders (was: OT: prostitutes), Frank Ellermann, 15:03
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 14:52
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 14:32
- Re: Explain, Mike, 14:23
- Explain, Mike, 14:20
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Graham Murray, 13:55
- RE: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, guy, 13:54
- Re: Unity, organisation and information for the masses, william(at)elan.net, 13:33
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Andrew W . Donoho, 13:22
- Re: Wizard and commas, Frank Ellermann, 13:15
- Re: Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Koen Martens, 13:06
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 13:02
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Andrew W . Donoho, 12:57
- Re: Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, Frank Ellermann, 12:52
- Re: Will SPF be able to help to detect these kind of forgeries?, Frank Ellermann, 12:36
- Unity, organisation and information for the masses, Koen Martens, 12:22
- Re: Development - Marketing parallelism, Koen Martens, 11:55
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Meng Weng Wong, 11:54
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Meng Weng Wong, 11:44
- Re: New Sender-ID draft, Frank Ellermann, 11:43
- Summary Please - where is SPF 1?, Jon Bertrand, 11:20
- SUGGESTION: No more ad-hominem attacks., Jonathan Gardner, 10:42
- OT [was: Vote of confidence/no-confidence...], Frank Ellermann, 10:14
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Lou Katz, 10:00
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, william(at)elan.net, 08:35
- Re: Sender ID in the news, jpinkerton, 07:38
- Re: RE: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, william(at)elan.net, 07:30
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Hannah Schroeter, 07:27
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:24
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, william(at)elan.net, 07:23
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Stuart D. Gathman, 07:19
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, Scott Kitterman, 07:14
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Hannah Schroeter, 07:12
- I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Holm, Mark, 07:08
- [NEWS] MSNBC - Microsoft revises anti-spam standard, Roy Badami, 06:58
- Re: Sender ID in the news, jpinkerton, 06:49
- RE: RE: Sender ID in the news, Scott Kitterman, 06:48
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Julian Mehnle, 06:44
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Hannah Schroeter, 06:40
- Re: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Hannah Schroeter, 06:28
- Re: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, william(at)elan.net, 06:27
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Julian Mehnle, 06:26
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Hannah Schroeter, 06:23
- RE: Development - Marketing parallelism, Julian Mehnle, 06:19
- RE: Sender ID in the news, guy, 06:18
- RE: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, Julian Mehnle, 06:12
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 06:07
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Shane Rush, 06:03
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Chris Haynes, 05:40
- Re: Development - Marketing parallelism, Hector Santos, 05:40
- RE: Sender ID in the news, guy, 05:24
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Shane Rush, 05:16
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, jpinkerton, 04:34
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, jpinkerton, 03:54
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Seth Goodman, 03:25
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Chris Haynes, 03:03
- Development - Marketing parallelism, Chris Haynes, 02:51
- Re: (off-list) RE: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Koen Martens, 02:41
- (off-list) RE: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Seth Goodman, 02:30
- Re: RE: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, Tony Finch, 02:14
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 02:10
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Joe Thompson, 02:03
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, NSLM, 02:01
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, gary, 01:34
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Chris Haynes, 01:16
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Koen Martens, 01:08
October 26, 2004
- Re: RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Shane Rush, 21:42
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Greg Connor, 21:24
- Re: [comment] Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Shane Rush, 21:22
- RE: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, Julian Mehnle, 19:11
- RE: SPF-DISCUSS Mail Summary Report, Guy, 18:20
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Julian Mehnle, 18:11
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 17:24
- Re: pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, Paul Iadonisi, 17:24
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Paul Iadonisi, 17:14
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Hector Santos, 16:05
- Re: SPF-DISCUSS Mail Summary Report, Hector Santos, 16:00
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, wayne, 15:43
- pushing people towards S/MIME and PGP, Meng Weng Wong, 15:39
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, wayne, 15:38
- Re: RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Meng Weng Wong, 15:21
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Meng Weng Wong, 15:20
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 15:19
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Julian Mehnle, 15:07
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:00
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Mark, 14:58
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPFrepresentative, Larry Smith, 14:54
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Julian Mehnle, 14:39
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Julian Mehnle, 14:27
- RE : Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPFrepresentative, Bourque Daniel, 14:26
- SPF-DISCUSS Mail Summary Report, winserver . support, 14:23
- SPF-DISCUSS Mail Summary Report, winserver . support, 14:19
- SPF-DISCUSS Mail Summary Report, winserver . support, 14:17
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, wayne, 14:16
- Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Frank Hellmann, 14:02
- Re: RE : Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPFrepresentative, Mike, 13:55
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Roger Moser, 13:53
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Michael Weiner, 13:46
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, wayne, 13:43
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, wayne, 13:39
- Sender ID in the news, Roger Moser, 13:35
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Alan Hodgson, 13:32
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 13:28
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Hector Santos, 13:27
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Meng Weng Wong, 13:26
- Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Roy Badami, 13:23
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 13:02
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Philip Larkin Waters, 12:55
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Ian Peter, 12:51
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, James Couzens, 12:32
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Koen Martens, 12:25
- Re: I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Meng Weng Wong, 12:19
- I hate to interrupt all this for something practical, but.... we need a concise, easy-to-follow set of SPF instructions in file format - anyone able to help?, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 12:06
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, spf, 11:56
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, rgreene(_at_)tclme(_dot_)org, 10:56
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 10:55
- Discuss vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Scott Kitterman, 10:52
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Scott Kitterman, 10:51
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, administrator, 10:45
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 10:26
- Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Shane Rush, 09:41
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Meng Weng Wong, 09:27
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Carl Hutzler, 09:12
- Re: Roger Moser, Mike, 09:09
- Re: Sender ID in the news, administrator, 09:03
- Roger Moser, Roger Moser, 08:54
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Julian Mehnle, 08:29
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Stefan Engelbert, 08:18
- RE: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Houle, Michael, 08:16
- Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative, Seth Goodman, 08:11
- RE: Sender ID in the news, Seth Goodman, 07:50
- Roger Moser, Mike, 07:30
- RE: DK, Jeff Macdonald, 07:21
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 05:47
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Scott Kitterman, 05:18
- Re: new Sender-ID Draft (was the Seth Hypothetical), James Couzens, 04:47
- Re: ptr issue, James Couzens, 04:43
- The Microsoft Plan, James Couzens, 04:29
- Where art thou IBM?, James Couzens, 04:01
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 03:19
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, jpinkerton, 02:14
- New Sender-ID draft, Roger Moser, 01:50
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Koen Martens, 01:02
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Chris Haynes, 00:53
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Koen Martens, 00:44
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Koen Martens, 00:43
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, jpinkerton, 00:12
October 25, 2004
- RE: the Seth Hypothetical, Greg Connor, 22:02
- RE: the Seth Hypothetical, Ian Peter, 18:54
- RE: the Seth Hypothetical, Seth Goodman, 16:55
- RE: DK, Seth Goodman, 14:19
- RE: the Seth Hypothetical, Seth Goodman, 14:12
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 14:00
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Meng Weng Wong, 13:58
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Michael Hammer, 13:48
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Meng Weng Wong, 13:27
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Greg Connor, 13:16
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Greg Connor, 13:09
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Arik Baratz, 12:53
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 12:26
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Meng Weng Wong, 12:14
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Scott Kitterman, 12:07
- Re: DK, wayne, 11:53
- Re: DK, Jeff Macdonald, 11:45
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 11:44
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 11:38
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Hector Santos, 11:35
- Re: Sender ID in the news, Meng Weng Wong, 11:31
- Re: [NEWS] MSNBC - Microsoft revises anti-spam standard, wayne, 11:20
- Re: ptr issue, Koen Martens, 11:17
- Re: Sender ID in the news, wayne, 11:14
- [NEWS] MSNBC - Microsoft revises anti-spam standard, wayne, 11:09
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Scott Kitterman, 11:08
- ptr issue, Eric Stocker, 10:51
- DK, Meng Weng Wong, 10:24
- Sender ID in the news, Meng Weng Wong, 10:07
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Michael Hammer, 08:35
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, william(at)elan.net, 08:16
- Re: Regain control, wayne, 07:37
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Michael Hammer, 07:32
- OT: prostitutes (was Re: Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune), Hannah Schroeter, 07:27
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Michael Hammer, 07:19
- Re: Regain control, James Couzens, 07:10
- If we were on IRC..., James Couzens, 07:02
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Michael Hammer, 06:36
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, James Couzens, 06:20
- RE: libspf2 on win32 build error, Jeremy Pullicino, 05:21
- libspf2 on win32 build error, Gerrit P. Haase, 04:23
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Boyd Lynn Gerber, 02:11
October 24, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/25/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:33
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Mark Shewmaker, 23:20
- Will SPF be able to help to detect these kind of forgeries?, M Z Rahman, 20:05
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, David Brodbeck, 18:11
- Re: Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, wayne, 15:04
- Re: Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, Greg Connor, 12:40
- Re: Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, Greg Connor, 12:36
- Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, william(at)elan.net, 12:26
- Re: Can I require to satisify multiple conditions based on spf record, wayne, 12:16
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Greg Connor, 11:30
- Re: I get more junk from this list than I get spam., Patrick Oonk, 10:20
- I get more junk from this list than I get spam., guy, 09:49
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Gerhard W. Recher, 06:35
- Mail Forum Statistics: 04 Oct 2004 - 24 Oct 2004, Hector Santos, 05:37
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on futureof SPF Community, Mark, 05:10
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Gerhard W. Recher, 05:05
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Hector Santos, 05:05
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Ralf Doeblitz, 04:51
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Ralf Doeblitz, 04:44
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Tim Meadowcroft, 04:03
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Marc Kool, 03:45
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, william(at)elan.net, 02:50
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Graham Murray, 02:33
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Chris Haynes, 02:28
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Richard Bang, 02:10
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Chris Drake, 00:22
October 23, 2004
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Greg Connor, 18:53
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:35
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 17:02
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, John Glube, 16:15
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 15:54
- RE: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 15:49
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 15:10
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 15:00
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Chris Haynes, 13:59
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Chris Haynes, 13:36
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Greg Connor, 13:30
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Greg Connor, 12:15
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, administrator, 08:28
- Re: Wizard and commas, Koen Martens, 06:21
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Koen Martens, 05:38
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 05:25
- RE: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 03:59
October 22, 2004
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 20:32
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Guy, 18:02
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 17:09
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Frank Ellermann, 16:13
- Re: Re: Get your act together., william(at)elan.net, 16:07
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 15:57
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Seth Goodman, 15:38
- Re: Get your act together., Frank Ellermann, 14:57
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 14:57
- Re: Regain control, wayne, 14:44
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Commerco WebMaster, 14:33
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Frank Ellermann, 14:22
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:57
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Frank Ellermann, 13:53
- Regain control (was: When did we lose control?), Frank Ellermann, 13:22
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, william(at)elan.net, 13:22
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 13:15
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, william(at)elan.net, 13:11
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 13:08
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 13:00
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 12:54
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 12:43
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, terry, 12:43
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 12:37
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Bill Landry, 12:29
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:25
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:22
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 12:14
- RE: the Seth Hypothetical, guy, 12:14
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 12:11
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Frank Ellermann, 12:06
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, wayne, 11:33
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, Jonathan Gardner, 11:30
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 11:18
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, jpinkerton, 11:10
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Commerco WebMaster, 11:09
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 11:05
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Commerco WebMaster, 10:55
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 10:33
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, John Glube, 10:28
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, Jeff Macdonald, 09:47
- Re: the Seth Hypothetical, william(at)elan.net, 09:41
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Alan Hodgson, 09:02
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 08:11
- Re: Has this been considered, william(at)elan.net, 08:07
- Re: Has this been considered, Theo Schlossnagle, 07:54
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Meng Weng Wong, 07:44
- Re: Has this been considered, Meng Weng Wong, 07:30
- Re: Has this been considered, Jeff Macdonald, 07:22
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 07:12
- Re: SPF authenticates, it does not identify spam, Holm, Mark, 07:12
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, wayne, 07:07
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Stefan Engelbert, 07:04
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, John Hinton, 06:59
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 06:54
- Re: Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, Meng Weng Wong, 06:40
- Re: Has this been considered, Holm, Mark, 06:38
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Meng Weng Wong, 06:31
- the Seth Hypothetical, Meng Weng Wong, 06:24
- RE: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Stefan Engelbert, 06:19
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, jamesp, 06:17
- Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, Danny Angus, 04:49
- SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on future of SPF Community, william(at)elan.net, 04:35
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, John Glube, 04:06
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, John Glube, 03:11
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 02:58
- Re: Has this been considered, Meng Weng Wong, 02:56
- Has this been considered, Richard Bang, 01:58
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we losecontrol?, jpinkerton, 01:12
- RE: Get your act together., Richard Bang, 01:11
- Re: SPF authenticates, it does not identify spam, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:56
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Greg Connor, 00:53
- RE: SPF authenticates, it does not identify spam, Richard Bang, 00:47
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:02
October 21, 2004
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Greg Connor, 23:48
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 22:48
- RE: SPF-classic is spf-draft-200406., guy, 22:02
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Vivien M., 20:27
- RE: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 19:49
- SPF-classic is spf-draft-200406., wayne, 18:35
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 18:10
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 18:00
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 16:36
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 16:36
- Re: Anonymousity and SPF: do not beat the wrong horse, Frank Ellermann, 15:35
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, John Glube, 15:30
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, Jon Bertrand, 15:23
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 15:13
- RE: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, guy, 14:12
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Holm, Mark, 14:02
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 14:01
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Vivien M., 14:00
- Anonymousity and SPF: do not beat the wrong horse, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:59
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 13:53
- Re: SPF authenticates, it does not identify spam, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:37
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, David Brodbeck, 13:33
- SPF authenticates, it does not identify spam, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:20
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 13:19
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:05
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:02
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Rand Wacker, 13:01
- Re: Regain control, Frank Ellermann, 13:01
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Rand Wacker, 13:00
- Re: When did we lose control?, Roger Moser, 13:00
- RE: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, terry, 12:57
- Re: Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, Jonathan Gardner, 12:55
- Regain control - *was* - When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 12:21
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 12:17
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Koen Martens, 12:05
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 11:57
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 11:50
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Roger B.A. Klorese, 11:47
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 11:45
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Theo Schlossnagle, 11:42
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 11:38
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 11:37
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 11:31
- Wizard and commas, Holm, Mark, 11:06
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Theo Schlossnagle, 10:46
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, David Brodbeck, 10:26
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 10:13
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, wayne, 09:24
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, guy, 09:13
- Re: When did we lose control?, Roger Moser, 09:13
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), Frank Ellermann, 09:10
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Rand Wacker, 09:06
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, wayne, 09:03
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, George Schlossnagle, 08:59
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Rand Wacker, 08:50
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 08:50
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, wayne, 08:47
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 08:36
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Rand Wacker, 08:34
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:33
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 08:27
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Mark, 07:59
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, George Schlossnagle, 07:35
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Michael Hammer, 07:30
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 07:15
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 06:18
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 06:05
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 05:52
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Richard Bang, 05:51
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 05:45
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Dan Barker, 05:43
- [OT] draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 - scope questions and comments, James Couzens, 05:39
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 05:20
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Richard Bang, 04:52
- Re: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Frank Ellermann, 04:49
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, James Couzens, 04:36
- Re: Proposal: the "properties" modifier, Frank Ellermann, 03:59
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, John Glube, 03:28
- RE: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Andrew Hodgson, 01:27
- Re: Re: New news articles, jpinkerton, 00:23
October 20, 2004
- RE: Re: New news articles, guy, 21:57
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, James Couzens, 18:16
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), James Couzens, 18:00
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Lou Katz, 17:42
- Re: Re: New news articles, wayne, 17:04
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), James Couzens, 16:22
- RE: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:35
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Seth Goodman, 15:22
- RE: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:21
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), Commerco WebMaster, 14:57
- RE: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Andrew Hodgson, 14:48
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Jeff Macdonald, 14:44
- RE: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Seth Goodman, 13:35
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 13:04
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), wayne, 12:26
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), Mark C. Langston, 12:01
- Re: Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), James Couzens, 11:55
- Re: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:04
- Establishing sanity recommendations for redirect= (related to Managing exploits), Commerco WebMaster, 10:49
- RE: SPF and moderated newsgroups, Andrew Hodgson, 10:11
- Re: SPF and moderated newsgroups, James Couzens, 09:52
- SPF and moderated newsgroups, Andrew Hodgson, 09:34
- RE: Re: Proposal: the "properties" modifier, guy, 01:49
- Re: Proposal: the "properties" modifier, Frank Ellermann, 00:47
- Re: Anti-spam article in the Baltimore Sun, jpinkerton, 00:23
- Proposal: the "properties" modifier, Frank Ellermann, 00:17
October 19, 2004
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Philip Waters, 23:08
- Re: New news articles, Frank Ellermann, 20:11
- Re: New news articles, Frank Ellermann, 19:03
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 18:37
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 17:32
- Re: Anti-spam article in the Baltimore Sun, Frank Ellermann, 16:09
- RE: Anti-spam article in the Baltimore Sun, Andy Bakun, 14:37
- Re: There is no cabal (was: When did we lose control?), spf, 14:22
- RE: Anti-spam article in the Baltimore Sun, guy, 14:00
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Boyd Lynn Gerber, 13:43
- Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:14
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Boyd Lynn Gerber, 12:29
- Re: New news articles, Hector Santos, 12:27
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, guy, 12:14
- Re: New news articles, jpinkerton, 11:58
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 10:56
- New news articles, jpinkerton, 10:46
- RE : Re: When did we lose control?, Bourque Daniel, 10:32
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Michael Hammer, 10:10
- Possible public political activities to stop SenderID abuse of v=spf1 (was - Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..), william(at)elan.net, 10:08
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 10:08
- Re: Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:07
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., jpinkerton, 08:50
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., David Brodbeck, 08:43
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, David Brodbeck, 08:37
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Theo Schlossnagle, 08:25
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Koen Martens, 08:10
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Theo Schlossnagle, 08:01
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., David Brodbeck, 07:56
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, terry, 07:50
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, David Brodbeck, 07:40
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Philip Waters, 07:35
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 04:48
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 03:39
- Re: New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, Tony Finch, 02:34
- New ideas for RFC2822 headers checking with SPF, william(at)elan.net, 02:18
- Re: Re: website, jpinkerton, 01:18
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 00:52
October 18, 2004
- Re: Resposible SUBMITTER (was: Moving Forward ...), william(at)elan.net, 20:00
- Re: Requested changes, Frank Ellermann, 19:41
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 18:55
- Re: website, Frank Ellermann, 18:53
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Lou Katz, 18:16
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 18:10
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:13
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:09
- Anti-spam article in the Baltimore Sun, guy, 13:49
- Re: A page with links to all existing SPF Web tools - WAS - Re:Re: How can this work?, jpinkerton, 12:35
- Re: website, Jason Gurtz, 11:18
- Re: website, James Couzens, 10:57
- Re: Requested changes, wayne, 10:19
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 09:23
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, guy, 09:01
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, phil, 08:48
- website, jpinkerton, 08:22
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 08:16
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 08:08
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 08:07
- Re: It's published!, Frank Ellermann, 07:39
- Requested changes (was: When did we lose control?), Frank Ellermann, 06:48
- Re: When did we lose control?, Roger Moser, 06:27
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 05:50
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 05:36
- SPF needs to cure itself from MARID poison (and fast!), william(at)elan.net, 04:27
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 03:41
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 01:17
October 17, 2004
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 23:32
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/18/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- RE: Re: When did we lose control?, guy, 22:20
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 suggestions, wayne, 22:03
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 suggestions, Andy Bakun, 21:43
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Alan Madill, 21:32
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 21:30
- Re: When did we lose control?, Greg Connor, 21:22
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 21:17
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, Mark Lentczner, 20:20
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 18:14
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Greg Connor, 16:55
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 16:47
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, wayne, 16:31
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Greg Connor, 16:25
- Re: It's published!, Frank Ellermann, 16:06
- Re: Re: It's published!, wayne, 15:58
- Re: When did we lose control?, Frank Ellermann, 15:12
- Re: It's published!, Roger Moser, 14:56
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 14:31
- Re: It's published!, Frank Ellermann, 14:07
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., jpinkerton, 13:53
- Re: Re: When did we lose control?, jpinkerton, 13:18
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Koen Martens, 13:05
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 suggestions, wayne, 13:02
- Re: When did we lose control?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 12:23
- Re: Re: It's published!, wayne, 12:07
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, guy, 11:48
- RE: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Guy, 11:47
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Bruce Barnes, 11:44
- Re: Re: It's published!, wayne, 11:33
- Re: Resposible SUBMITTER, wayne, 11:08
- Re: Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 now available, wayne, 10:07
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 now available, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09:44
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne, 08:39
- Re: It's published!, Frank Ellermann, 08:22
- RE: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., terry, 06:12
- Re: Re: It's published!, Commerco WebMaster, 05:00
- Re: Unrecognized modifiers, Frank Ellermann, 04:43
- Re: 2.3 Checking Authorization, Frank Ellermann, 04:27
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Commerco WebMaster, 04:22
- Re: It's published!, Frank Ellermann, 03:44
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 02:41
- Resposible SUBMITTER (was: Moving Forward ...), Frank Ellermann, 01:59
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, jpinkerton, 01:57
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 suggestions, Andy Bakun, 01:56
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Frank Ellermann, 01:09
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Nick Phillips, 01:04
October 16, 2004
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Bruce Barnes, 17:23
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Seth Goodman, 16:35
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:05
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Koen Martens, 10:06
- RE: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 now available, guy, 09:41
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, guy, 09:14
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Margaret Olson, 05:43
- When did we lose control?, Mark, 03:49
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, william(at)elan.net, 02:33
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, william(at)elan.net, 02:05
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, jpinkerton, 00:45
October 15, 2004
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, jpinkerton, 23:53
- Re: draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2 now available, wayne, 23:48
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, John Glube, 22:59
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, John Glube, 21:55
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, John Glube, 20:46
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 20:35
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, william(at)elan.net, 20:35
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, wayne, 20:11
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne, 19:30
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne, 19:21
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne, 19:02
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., terry, 18:29
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Roger Moser, 15:56
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, John Glube, 14:44
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Koen Martens, 13:44
- RE: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:51
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Holm, Mark, 12:30
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, Holm, Mark, 10:57
- will PRA checking take off anyway?, Meng Weng Wong, 09:25
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 08:08
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., David Brodbeck, 07:31
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., David Brodbeck, 07:20
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, wayne, 06:37
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., william(at)elan.net, 04:32
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Roger Moser, 03:18
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Roger Moser, 03:17
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark, 01:13
October 14, 2004
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, jpinkerton, 23:49
- Re: It's published!, jpinkerton, 23:42
- draft-schlitt-spf-00pre1 now available (Was: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit...), wayne, 23:29
- RE: Managing exploits, gary, 23:25
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 22:05
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 21:36
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Shewmaker, 20:28
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark, 20:05
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., guy, 19:37
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 19:24
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Larry Smith, 19:21
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Shewmaker, 19:12
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., guy, 19:09
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Stuart D. Gathman, 19:03
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark, 18:54
- Re: Managing exploits, wayne, 18:23
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 18:19
- Re: Managing exploits, Roger Moser, 17:23
- SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, william(at)elan.net, 17:12
- Re: SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO, James Couzens, 17:00
- Re: It's published!, James Couzens, 16:57
- RE: Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 16:20
- Re: It's published!, Mark C. Langston, 16:10
- Re: Managing exploits, Mark C. Langston, 16:08
- RE: Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc., Roger Moser, 15:55
- Re: It's published!, csm, 15:26
- It's published!, Mark Lentczner, 15:25
- Re: Managing exploits, Mark Lentczner, 15:19
- Managing exploits, Commerco WebMaster, 14:32
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Michael Hammer, 14:10
- RE: Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 14:06
- RE: Unrecognized Mechanisms and Modifiers, guy, 12:45
- RE: Moving Forward ..., Rand Wacker, 12:32
- RE: 2.3 Checking Authorization, David Brodbeck, 12:29
- Unrecognized modifiers, guy, 12:13
- Add example to the draft - ptr, guy, 12:03
- RE: Question about the draft, Guy, 11:55
- RE: 2.3 Checking Authorization, guy, 11:40
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 11:29
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, spf, 10:57
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Stuart D. Gathman, 10:49
- Re: Unrecognized Mechanisms and Modifiers, wayne, 10:42
- Re: 2.3 Checking Authorization, Mark Lentczner, 10:03
- Re: 2.3 Checking Authorization, David Brodbeck, 10:02
- Re: Unrecognized Mechanisms and Modifiers, Mark Lentczner, 09:59
- Re: Question about the draft, Mark Lentczner, 09:54
- 2.3 Checking Authorization, Guy, 08:58
- Re: Moving Forward ..., administrator, 08:47
- Unrecognized Mechanisms and Modifiers, guy, 08:41
- Question about the draft, guy, 08:31
- RE: Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc., guy, 08:19
- Re: Re: Moving Forward ..., william(at)elan.net, 07:06
- Re: Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc., Mark, 06:32
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Mark, 06:05
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Frank Ellermann, 06:04
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc., Frank Ellermann, 05:01
- RE: Moving Forward ..., terry, 04:32
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Raymond Neeves, 04:17
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Chris Haynes, 04:10
- Re: Moving Forward ..., william(at)elan.net, 04:06
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Frank Ellermann, 03:27
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, william(at)elan.net, 03:24
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, william(at)elan.net, 03:00
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, jpinkerton, 02:25
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Mark, 01:18
- Re: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Mark, 01:13
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Koen Martens, 01:09
- Re: IETF-61 DNSEXT agenda items, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:00
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, jpinkerton, 00:55
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Koen Martens, 00:43
October 13, 2004
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Mark Lentczner, 21:50
- RE: Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 21:01
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Commerco WebMaster, 20:41
- RE: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, guy, 20:38
- RE: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Raymond Neeves, 20:35
- RE: Article on Microsoft patents and Caller ID, guy, 20:04
- RE: Moving Forward ..., Mark Shewmaker, 19:56
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Meng Weng Wong, 19:37
- RE: Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 19:21
- RE: Moving Forward ..., terry, 19:10
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 19:05
- RE: Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 18:33
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Carl Hutzler, 17:25
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Mark, 17:07
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Chuck Mead, 17:01
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Meng Weng Wong, 16:56
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Meng Weng Wong, 16:48
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:33
- I-D ACTION:draft-iab-dns-choices-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 15:18
- Moving Forward ..., John Glube, 14:13
- Re: Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, Koen Martens, 13:55
- Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$?, jpinkerton, 12:36
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 12:07
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, jpinkerton, 11:22
- Re: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Chip Mefford, 11:22
- RE: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., guy, 10:34
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Meng Weng Wong, 10:18
- Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Tim Kennedy, 10:11
- Re: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:37
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., David Brodbeck, 09:36
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 09:35
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Chris Haynes, 09:21
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Stuart D. Gathman, 09:05
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, John Glube, 08:26
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Paul Ficinski, 08:20
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Hannah Schroeter, 08:10
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 08:03
- RE: MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Bruce Barnes, 06:59
- [OT] ACHTUNG hostmaster of nixtra.com, James Couzens, 06:54
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Hannah Schroeter, 06:43
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., George Schlossnagle, 06:43
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Theo Schlossnagle, 06:36
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Hannah Schroeter, 06:20
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, wayne, 06:14
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, Chuck Mead, 06:10
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 06:06
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 05:53
- MAIL FROM address literals etc. (was: SPF v1 draft for review), Frank Ellermann, 05:50
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 00:50
- Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$? -- WAS -- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:18
October 12, 2004
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., guy, 23:54
- [SPF v1 Draft] Submitted!, Mark Lentczner, 23:33
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 23:30
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 23:09
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 23:07
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 22:52
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Meng Weng Wong, 22:27
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Frank Ellermann, 22:10
- RE: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., John Glube, 21:51
- Re: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, wayne, 20:28
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 19:44
- RE: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Greg Connor, 19:42
- Re: Has Meng sold us out to M$? -- WAS -- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, wayne, 19:42
- Re: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., wayne, 19:27
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 19:20
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Greg Connor, 19:16
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., John Glube, 19:07
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 19:07
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Greg Connor, 19:04
- Re: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, william(at)elan.net, 18:12
- Re: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Theo Schlossnagle, 17:46
- RE: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, guy, 17:34
- Re: Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Theo Schlossnagle, 17:31
- Who is coming to NANOG/ARIN?, Chip Mefford, 17:27
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., william(at)elan.net, 17:26
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Meng Weng Wong, 15:36
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 13:28
- Re: Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Mark Lentczner, 12:52
- RE: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:29
- RE: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:27
- RE: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Dan Barker, 11:24
- RE: hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Dan Barker, 11:16
- hera.wprost.pl has a bad SPF checker, Meng Weng Wong, 10:49
- RE: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., John Glube, 10:06
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 09:48
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark, 09:41
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark, 09:20
- Re: IETF-61 DNSEXT agenda items, Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair, 07:13
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Hannah Schroeter, 06:12
- RE: Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., terry, 05:45
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, terry, 05:34
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., william(at)elan.net, 05:26
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, terry, 05:25
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Roy Badami, 05:22
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:56
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:55
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Shewmaker, 01:29
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, guy, 01:19
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, guy, 01:13
- Re: Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Andy Bakun, 01:07
- Re: IETF-61 DNSEXT agenda items, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:05
- Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 00:27
October 11, 2004
- [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit..., Mark Lentczner, 23:59
- Has Meng sold us out to M$? -- WAS -- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, jpinkerton, 23:52
- spf entries for which hosts ???, Roger Moser, 23:37
- Out of Office AutoReply: Digest 1.558 for spf-discu ss, Mary Beth Ellis, 23:29
- Re: Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark Lentczner, 23:28
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, guy, 17:55
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 14:44
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Commerco WebMaster, 13:05
- Re: SES, Joe Rhett, 12:59
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Commerco WebMaster, 12:54
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Commerco WebMaster, 12:40
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 12:31
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 12:31
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 12:27
- RE: spf entries for which hosts ???, guy, 12:24
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Meng Weng Wong, 12:19
- Re: spf entries for which hosts ???, Koen Martens, 04:16
- spf entries for which hosts ???, Margrit Lottmann, 02:25
October 10, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/11/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:23
- Re: A page with links to all existing SPF Web tools - WAS - Re:Re: How can this work?, jpinkerton, 11:58
- Re: Idea! Let's force adoption., Meng Weng Wong, 09:14
- RE: Re: How can this work?, william(at)elan.net, 05:04
- Re: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), Mark Shewmaker, 03:17
October 08, 2004
- Re: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), Hector Santos, 23:17
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), Greg Connor, 22:53
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Koen Martens, 16:21
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Nico Kadel-Garcia, 13:56
- RE: Re: How can this work?, Guy, 09:38
- Re: A page with links to all existing SPF Web tools - WAS - Re: Re: How can this work?, James Couzens, 09:26
- Re: Re: How can this work?, Mark, 07:11
- RE: Re: How can this work?, Ernesto Baschny, 07:03
- Re: Re: How can this work?, Mark, 06:58
- RE: Re: How can this work?, administrator, 06:49
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), jpinkerton, 06:34
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), John Hinton, 06:16
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 05:24
- Early history of SPF, william(at)elan.net, 03:17
- A page with links to all existing SPF Web tools - WAS - Re: Re: How can this work?, jpinkerton, 01:21
- Re: Re: How can this work?, jpinkerton, 00:11
October 07, 2004
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), Douglas Otis, 20:37
- Re: How can this work?, Frank Ellermann, 20:17
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), Hector Santos, 20:09
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Frank Ellermann, 19:51
- Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Frank Ellermann, 19:38
- Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Frank Ellermann, 18:55
- I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 18:15
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:15
- Forwarding and SPF/SRS, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:08
- [SPF classic] Organizing the discussion (Was: SPF v1 draft for review, Roger Moser, 14:28
- Re: Re: How can this work?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:08
- RE: Re: How can this work?, Dan Barker, 13:59
- RE: Re: How can this work?, Dan Barker, 13:55
- Re: How can this work?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:51
- Re: How can this work?, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:44
- The new DNS RR type was already discussed in MARID (Was: SPF v1 draft for review, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:20
- [SPF classic] Organizing the discussion (Was: SPF v1 draft for review, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:02
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, David Brodbeck, 12:21
- Re: How can this work?, David Brodbeck, 12:12
- Re: List of registrars that support SPF., Koen Martens, 11:50
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Koen Martens, 11:25
- List of registrars that support SPF., Josep M., 11:20
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Michael Hammer, 10:15
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Daniel Taylor, 10:13
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, wayne, 10:10
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 09:52
- Where is the current draft of spf classic and unified, guy, 09:32
- Re: OT - history of SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 09:26
- Re: How can this work?, Holm, Mark, 09:23
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Daniel Taylor, 09:23
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, administrator, 09:18
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, guy, 09:16
- RE: How can this work?, guy, 09:14
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 09:08
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 09:08
- Re: How can this work?, Ernesto Baschny, 09:02
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Daniel Taylor, 09:01
- Re: How can this work?, Alan Hodgson, 08:58
- Re: How can this work?, Daniel Taylor, 08:58
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, guy, 08:57
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 08:54
- How can this work?, Dan Barker, 08:53
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Scott Kitterman, 08:52
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Daniel Taylor, 08:51
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 08:45
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, guy, 08:41
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, guy, 08:35
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, wayne, 07:42
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 07:37
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, wayne, 07:16
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Scott Kitterman, 07:14
- Re: Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, wayne, 06:48
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, John Hinton, 06:46
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, David Brodbeck, 06:43
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, David Brodbeck, 06:39
- Re: Changing Standards - Flashback, Mark, 06:19
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, terry, 06:06
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, terry, 06:01
- RE: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Scott Kitterman, 05:59
- RE: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Stefan Engelbert, 05:50
- Re: OT - history of SPF, Frank Ellermann, 05:47
- RE: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Scott Kitterman, 05:47
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, terry, 05:42
- OT - history of SPF, Jeremy Pullicino, 05:15
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Jim Hill, 04:05
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Chip Mefford, 04:02
- Re: Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 02:54
- RE: Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Bruce Barnes, 00:53
- Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Frank Ellermann, 00:35
- Re: Changing Standards - Flashback, Peter Karsai, 00:22
- Re: Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, william(at)elan.net, 00:15
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Peter Karsai, 00:15
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Frank Ellermann, 00:13
- Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Frank Ellermann, 00:01
October 06, 2004
- Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 23:49
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Koen Martens, 23:33
- Re: [SPF Classic] DNS attacks, Frank Ellermann, 23:27
- Re: Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Meng Weng Wong, 23:24
- Re: Changing Standards - Flashback, Commerco WebMaster, 23:06
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Frank Ellermann, 22:51
- Changing Standards - Flashback, Hector Santos, 19:50
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Paul Ficinski, 19:26
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Hector Santos, 19:26
- Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Hector Santos, 19:00
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, william(at)elan.net, 18:47
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Theo Schlossnagle, 18:45
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Anthony Ching, 18:44
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Hector Santos, 18:31
- Re: ebay spf records, Meng Weng Wong, 18:18
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, william(at)elan.net, 18:16
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, guy, 18:00
- RE: Meeting at IETF 61, guy, 17:37
- Re: [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Jim Hill, 17:32
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Benjamin Franz, 16:50
- RE: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, terry, 16:32
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark Shewmaker, 15:39
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Dale Ghent, 14:54
- RE: Meeting at IETF 61, guy, 14:44
- Re: Meeting at IETF 61, Dale Ghent, 14:33
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Mark, 14:31
- Re: Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Meng Weng Wong, 14:25
- Meeting at IETF 61, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:19
- Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Mark, 14:18
- Extreme times call for extreme measures?, Jon Bertrand, 14:09
- [SPF Classic] Wording for the ptr mechanism is IPv4 only, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:09
- [SPF Classic] New RR type is not actual deployment, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 14:02
- [SPF Classic] Privacy and disclosure of 2821 MAIL FROM, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:57
- Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Tony Finch, 13:51
- [SPF Classic] DNS attacks, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:50
- [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be kept out, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 13:46
- Re: Grant writing volunteer needed for SPF, william(at)elan.net, 13:26
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Koen Martens, 13:26
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, David Brodbeck, 13:09
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Koen Martens, 13:06
- Re: PR director needed for SPF, Koen Martens, 13:02
- badsenderid.org (was: Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?), Koen Martens, 12:54
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Koen Martens, 12:41
- Re: Grant writing volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 12:40
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 12:40
- Re: Grant writing volunteer needed for SPF, william(at)elan.net, 11:46
- Re: End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:24
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Frank Ellermann, 11:15
- Fundraising director needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:10
- ISP outreach volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 11:05
- RE: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], administrator, 10:59
- Grant writing volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:56
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, william(at)elan.net, 10:55
- End-user support volunteer needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:54
- Testing coordinator needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:50
- Development coordinator needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:46
- PR director needed for SPF, Meng Weng Wong, 10:43
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, spf, 10:42
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Hector Santos, 10:37
- RE: SPF v1 draft for review, guy, 10:09
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Dale Ghent, 09:45
- RE: SPF v1 draft for review, terry, 09:41
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:32
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark Lentczner, 09:21
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Michael Hammer, 08:22
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, Michael Hammer, 07:39
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Peter Karsai, 07:38
- Re: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Mark Shewmaker, 07:32
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark, 07:24
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark, 07:13
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Peter Karsai, 07:07
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Roger Moser, 06:49
- Re: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Mark, 06:33
- RE: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], terry, 06:15
- Re: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Greg Hewgill, 06:12
- RE: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Scott Kitterman, 06:11
- RE: SPF v1 draft for review, terry, 05:59
- Re: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Mark, 05:57
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Mark, 05:48
- Re: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Greg Hewgill, 05:44
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Peter Karsai, 05:17
- SPF v1 draft for review, Roger Moser, 04:58
- comman mistakes in SPF Records., Shoaib, 04:44
- Re: Re: What to include..., Mark, 03:13
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, jpinkerton, 00:46
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Commerco WebMaster, 00:03
October 05, 2004
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Koen Martens, 23:35
- Re: SPF v1 draft for review, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 23:22
- SPF v1 draft for review, Mark Lentczner, 23:14
- RE: SES, Seth Goodman, 23:07
- Re: What to include..., Frank Ellermann, 22:49
- Re: Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 21:55
- Re: ebay spf records, Frank Ellermann, 21:37
- Re: Re: What to include..., Greg Connor, 21:27
- Re: Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 21:24
- Re: Re: What to include..., Theo Schlossnagle, 21:24
- Re: Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 20:34
- RE: HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Raymond Neeves, 20:25
- Re: What to include..., Frank Ellermann, 19:36
- Forum Stats Generator, Hector Santos, 18:05
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Hector Santos, 16:34
- HELO Checking [Re: What to include...], Hector Santos, 16:15
- Re: ebay spf records, Meng Weng Wong, 10:51
- Re: What to include..., Meng Weng Wong, 10:49
- Re: What to include..., Mark Shewmaker, 10:43
- ebay spf records, Holm, Mark, 09:35
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Chip Mefford, 09:11
- Re: What to include..., Mark, 09:08
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Nico Kadel-Garcia, 08:35
- Re: What to include..., administrator, 08:24
- ebay spf records, Roger Moser, 08:21
- ebay spf records, Holm, Mark, 07:24
- RE: Re: What to include..., terry, 07:20
- Re: Re: What to include..., David Brodbeck, 07:08
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., David Brodbeck, 06:55
- Re: SES, David Brodbeck, 06:52
- RE: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Scott Kitterman, 06:28
October 04, 2004
- Re: Re: What to include..., Eric S. Raymond, 23:56
- Re: Re: What to include..., Dale Ghent, 23:48
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Stuart D. Gathman, 20:19
- Re: What to include..., Stuart D. Gathman, 20:06
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., terry, 19:26
- SPF Setup, Anthony Ching, 19:04
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., william(at)elan.net, 18:43
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., william(at)elan.net, 18:37
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube, 18:00
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Hector Santos, 17:22
- Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 16:58
- Re: Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, wayne, 16:43
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., spf, 16:40
- Re: POBOX.com DNS problems, Meng Weng Wong, 16:39
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., william(at)elan.net, 16:34
- Re: What to include..., Mark, 16:26
- Re: What to include..., wayne, 16:20
- Re: What to include..., Meng Weng Wong, 16:19
- Re: What to include..., Mark, 16:16
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Meng Weng Wong, 16:11
- Re: What to include..., Meng Weng Wong, 16:09
- Re: What to include..., Mark, 15:56
- Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 15:30
- Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 15:20
- Re: What to include..., Meng Weng Wong, 15:19
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Chuck Mead, 15:08
- Re: What to include..., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 15:04
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., wayne, 15:01
- Re: What to include..., administrator, 14:40
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Graham Murray, 14:15
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 14:08
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 14:07
- Re: SPF Setup, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:08
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Lou Katz, 13:02
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Dale Ghent, 13:01
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Larry Hand, 12:57
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Tim Kennedy, 12:42
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Meng Weng Wong, 12:31
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Meng Weng Wong, 12:17
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Lou Katz, 12:13
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Chuck Mead, 12:00
- Re: SES, George Schlossnagle, 12:00
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Eric S. Raymond, 11:56
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Chip Mefford, 11:48
- Re: SES (was moving on from MARID), Stuart D. Gathman, 11:48
- Re: Moving Forward, My Plan, Chuck Mead, 11:30
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Steven Earl Smith, 11:30
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Meng Weng Wong, 11:29
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, jpinkerton, 11:17
- RE: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, John Glube, 11:10
- Re: Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Commerco WebMaster, 10:41
- Re: What to include..., Stuart D. Gathman, 10:16
- Article in Oakland (CA) Tribune, Lou Katz, 10:09
- RE: SES, Seth Goodman, 09:34
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube, 06:46
- Re: What to include..., Hector Santos, 05:54
- SES (was moving on from MARID), Roger Moser, 05:42
- Re: SES, Theo Schlossnagle, 05:35
- Re: What to include..., william(at)elan.net, 05:00
- Re: What to include..., Jim Hill, 04:58
- POBOX.com DNS problems, Bruce Barnes, 03:34
- Re: SES, Tony Finch, 03:20
- Bug? Re: Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Hector Santos, 02:54
- Re: SES, Hector Santos, 02:45
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Danny Angus, 01:46
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 01:33
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Danny Angus, 01:27
October 03, 2004
- Weekly SPF discussion mailinglist stats for 10/04/04, Wayne Schlitt, 23:56
- Re: SES, James Couzens, 23:36
- SES, Roger Moser, 23:25
- Re: SES, Meng Weng Wong, 21:05
- Re: What to include..., Frank Ellermann, 19:44
- Re: What to include..., Scott Kitterman, 19:00
- What to include..., Mark Lentczner, 18:44
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm, Frank Ellermann, 18:05
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube, 17:56
- Re: Re: Unified SPF Algorithm, Greg Connor, 15:53
- Re: BBC coverage of SPF, Frank Ellermann, 13:16
- Re: SES, James Couzens, 13:08
- Re: Moving forward, Frank Ellermann, 12:50
- Re: SES, william(at)elan.net, 12:38
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm, Frank Ellermann, 12:11
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Frank Ellermann, 11:20
- Re: Moving Forward, My Plan, Frank Ellermann, 09:33
- Re: SES, James Couzens, 05:46
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., jpinkerton, 02:50
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Greg Connor, 02:44
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Greg Connor, 02:31
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube, 02:29
- Re: Moving Forward, My Plan, Koen Martens, 00:37
October 02, 2004
- Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Roger Moser, 22:36
- RE: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., John Glube, 22:00
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Jim Hill, 19:22
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., wayne, 18:53
- Re: Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Andy Bakun, 18:45
- Re: Moving Forward, My Plan, Jim Hill, 17:06
- Moving Forward, My Plan, Mark Lentczner, 16:47
- Why I think we should tolerate compatibility with PRA., Meng Weng Wong, 16:19
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Hector Santos, 15:18
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), william(at)elan.net, 14:00
- Re: Re: The pretty name, Joe Rhett, 12:50
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Joe Rhett, 11:04
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Joe Rhett, 10:58
- Hackers conference, Mark Lentczner, 10:15
- SPF Setup, Anthony Ching, 08:17
- Re: Source of the drafts? (Was: Moving forward, wayne, 05:47
- Source of the drafts? (Was: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 02:06
- Re: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:46
- Re: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:41
- Re: Moving forward, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:39
- Re: The pretty name, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 01:28
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, jpinkerton, 00:31
October 01, 2004
- Re: SES, wayne, 20:13
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, wayne, 20:09
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, Hector Santos, 20:04
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, william(at)elan.net, 19:30
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, Jim Hill, 18:51
- SPF-Enabled open-source product announcement and request-for-input: Generic anti-spam platform, Chris Drake, 18:40
- Re: SES (was moving on from MARID), Meng Weng Wong, 18:24
- Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?, Meng Weng Wong, 18:04
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Meng Weng Wong, 17:57
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Greg Hewgill, 17:25
- Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID, Meng Weng Wong, 17:13
- RE: Moving forward, John Glube, 17:04
- Re: The pretty name, Meng Weng Wong, 16:58
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 16:31
- Re: Moving forward, Mark Lentczner, 16:23
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Hector Santos, 15:59
- Re: Are spaces allowed in mechanism?, Mark Lentczner, 15:10
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 14:56
- RE: Moving forward, John Glube, 14:36
- Re: Moving forward, jpinkerton, 14:26
- Re: Moving forward, Michael Hammer, 14:18
- RE: SES (was moving on from MARID), Tony Finch, 14:03
- Re: Moving forward, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 13:56
- Are spaces allowed in mechanism?, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:55
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 13:54
- Re: Moving forward, Graham Murray, 13:43
- RE: Moving forward, John Glube, 13:34
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 13:14
- back from tokyo, Meng Weng Wong, 12:47
- Re: Re: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 12:27
- Re: The pretty name, Ryan Malayter, 12:14
- Re: Moving forward, Jim Hill, 12:10
- RE: SES (was moving on from MARID), Stuart D. Gathman, 11:47
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 11:37
- Re: Moving forward, william(at)elan.net, 11:35
- Re: Moving forward, John Hinton, 11:32
- Re: Moving forward, wayne, 11:02
- Re: Moving forward, jpinkerton, 10:37
- Re: Moving forward, Michael Hammer, 10:08
- Re: Moving forward, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>, 09:28
- Re: Re: Moving forward, wayne, 08:16
- RE: Moving forward, Scott Kitterman, 07:07
- RE: SPF Setup, Scott Kitterman, 07:03
- RE: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Scott Kitterman, 06:51
- RE: SES (was moving on from MARID), John Glube, 06:36
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Jason Gurtz, 06:15
- Re: BBC coverage of SPF, jpinkerton, 05:57
- BBC coverage of SPF, Chris Haynes, 05:19
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Danny Angus, 04:35
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Paul Howarth, 03:56
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Mark Shewmaker, 03:21
- Re: Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Mark Shewmaker, 02:32
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Hector Santos, 02:27
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Len Conrad, 02:11
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Hector Santos, 02:01
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Hector Santos, 01:58
- Re: The pretty name, Mark, 01:44
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Koen Martens, 01:31
- Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), Danny Angus, 01:29
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], william(at)elan.net, 01:13
- Re: Re: Unified SPF Algorithm (was: moving on from MARID), william(at)elan.net, 00:44
- Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name], Mark Shewmaker, 00:43
- SES (was moving on from MARID), Seth Goodman, 00:27
- RE: The pretty name, Stefan Engelbert, 00:15