SPF Discuss (date)
May 31, 2005
- Re: SPF-council IRC logs for 2005-05-25, william(at)elan.net, 19:08
- Re: Re: overall HELO FAIL, william(at)elan.net, 19:05
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Frank Ellermann, 18:36
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), wayne, 11:48
- Re: spf global or not, Julian Mehnle, 11:43
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1, Mark Shewmaker, 11:02
- For SPF Council review: Definition of Neutral in combination with definition of Pass, Scott Kitterman, 10:09
- spf global or not, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:21
- New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1, wayne, 08:02
May 29, 2005
- Test of Resent, Graham Murray, 12:31
- Re: IPv6 with 'a' or do we need 'aaaa' ? (Was: Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames), Constantine A. Murenin, 12:10
- Manual Resent-* test (was: "Header Reordering", yet again), Frank Ellermann, 11:51
- Re: Re: Resent- header fields, Tony Finch, 10:55
- Re: Re: Resent- header fields, william(at)elan.net, 09:48
- Re: Re: Resent- header fields, wayne, 09:34
- Re: Resent- header fields, william(at)elan.net, 08:55
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Frank Ellermann, 07:51
- Resent- header fields, william(at)elan.net, 07:31
- Re: IETF Datatracker Records, william(at)elan.net, 06:37
- Re: IETF Datatracker Records, wayne, 05:00
- Re: scope=mfrom is taboo, Frank Ellermann, 03:28
May 27, 2005
- Re: scope=mfrom is taboo, Frank Ellermann, 23:51
- exp= modifier and processing limits, wayne, 23:07
- Re: reviews (was: overall HELO FAIL), wayne, 22:06
- reviews (was: overall HELO FAIL), Frank Ellermann, 21:36
- Re: scope=mfrom is taboo, wayne, 21:13
- Re: Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 17:11
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Dennis Willson, 16:20
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:16
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 16:03
- Sarcasm (was: overall HELO FAIL), Frank Ellermann, 15:29
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Hector Santos, 15:06
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 14:21
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 14:08
- scope=mfrom is taboo (was: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro), Frank Ellermann, 13:59
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 12:45
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 12:32
- Re: Re: overall HELO FAIL, wayne, 11:43
- Re: Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, wayne, 11:36
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 11:29
- RE: Re: overall HELO FAIL, Scott Kitterman, 11:17
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 11:07
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, John A. Martin, 10:39
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, Frank Ellermann, 10:37
- Re: Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, william(at)elan.net, 09:17
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, John A. Martin, 08:56
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, william(at)elan.net, 08:41
- Re: Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, william(at)elan.net, 08:08
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:59
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, John A. Martin, 06:31
- Re: Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 05:32
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 05:20
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 05:02
- Re: [Fwd: Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http: //www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"], Stuart D. Gathman, 04:56
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, Julian Mehnle, 04:45
- Re: Re: overall HELO FAIL, wayne, 02:29
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, wayne, 02:08
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 00:42
May 26, 2005
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, william(at)elan.net, 21:42
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, william(at)elan.net, 21:10
- Re: [Fwd: Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http: //www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"], Terry Fielder, 20:48
- Re: Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, william(at)elan.net, 19:00
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 18:52
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 18:16
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, wayne, 17:31
- Re: overall HELO FAIL, Terry Fielder, 17:12
- overall HELO FAIL, Frank Ellermann, 16:16
- Fwd [from ietf-mxcomp]: overall HELO FAIL, Julian Mehnle, 14:56
- Identity codes, plus a new %{x} macro, Julian Mehnle, 13:43
- Re: Re: IPv6 with 'a' or do we need 'aaaa' ?, wayne, 06:12
- Re: Re: IPv6 with 'a' or do we need 'aaaa' ?, Jeroen Massar, 06:05
- Re: IPv6 with 'a' or do we need 'aaaa' ?, Frank Ellermann, 04:38
- Draft of paper on path and cryptographic authentication, william(at)elan.net, 03:16
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Bill Taroli, 01:03
- IPv6 with 'a' or do we need 'aaaa' ? (Was: Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames), Jeroen Massar, 00:07
May 25, 2005
- [Fwd: Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http: //www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"], johnp, 23:09
- RE: [spa-discuss] Sep 22 - Jan 03, John Glube, 22:12
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Mark Shewmaker, 14:38
- Re: For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, Julian Mehnle, 14:00
- Re: Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, wayne, 13:57
- Re: For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, wayne, 13:54
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Julian Mehnle, 13:48
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Constantine A. Murenin, 13:48
- Re: For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, Frank Ellermann, 13:41
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Julian Mehnle, 13:37
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Constantine A. Murenin, 13:36
- Re: Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, Julian Mehnle, 13:30
- RE: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 13:28
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Constantine A. Murenin, 13:27
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Constantine A. Murenin, 13:18
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Julian Mehnle, 13:15
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Julian Mehnle, 13:09
- Re: Re: For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, Julian Mehnle, 12:33
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Constantine A. Murenin, 11:29
- Re: For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, Frank Ellermann, 11:20
- For SPF Council review: Section 9.3.1.2 and the 63 chars limit for localpart crypto schemes, Julian Mehnle, 10:56
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Julian Mehnle, 10:37
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, wayne, 09:38
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 09:34
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Julian Mehnle, 09:18
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 09:13
- Discussion on uses of a neutral ID, David MacQuigg, 08:52
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 08:51
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Julian Mehnle, 08:12
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, Frank Ellermann, 07:43
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, Julian Mehnle, 07:38
- RE: Sep 22 - Jan 03, Scott Kitterman, 07:22
- RE: Sep 22 - Jan 03, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:20
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:03
- RE: Sep 22 - Jan 03, william(at)elan.net, 05:54
- RE: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark, 04:53
- Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, Frank Ellermann, 04:37
- Comments and objections on MARID-related drafts, william(at)elan.net, 04:23
- RE: Sep 22 - Jan 03, John Glube, 02:59
May 24, 2005
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 21:22
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, wayne, 21:07
- Re: Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Bill Taroli, 21:01
- Re: Sep 22 - Jan 03, wayne, 20:48
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 20:32
- Re: Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, wayne, 18:38
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark Shewmaker, 16:49
- Sending mail from dynamic IP-addresses with dynamic PTR hostnames, but constant EHLO/HELO hostnames, Constantine A. Murenin, 16:36
- Re: Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, Frank Ellermann, 15:40
- RE: Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, Scott Kitterman, 13:53
- Re: Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, wayne, 13:47
- Re: Re: Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, wayne, 13:11
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 11:10
- Re: Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, Frank Ellermann, 11:04
- RE: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 11:03
- Review of MARID ID: draft-lyon-senderid-core-01, wayne, 09:14
- Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, Frank Ellermann, 06:29
- Re: 63/64 and two minor -01 problems, wayne, 05:03
May 23, 2005
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark Shewmaker, 21:21
- RE: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark, 20:31
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 16:42
- 63/64 and two minor -01 problems (was: BTFOOM), Frank Ellermann, 15:12
- Re: BTFOOM, Julian Mehnle, 14:37
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark Shewmaker, 14:30
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:21
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 13:12
- RE: Sep 22 - Jan 03 (was: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01), John Glube, 13:02
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 12:49
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 11:53
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 11:30
- Re: Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), Michael Hammer, 11:22
- Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), william(at)elan.net, 11:09
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:38
- Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), william(at)elan.net, 10:12
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Mark Shewmaker, 10:05
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 09:49
- Re: Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:28
- Email ID Declaration - Summary of Objections, David MacQuigg, 09:21
- Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), Frank Ellermann, 07:30
- Re: Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), wayne, 06:33
- Re: Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), william(at)elan.net, 05:49
- Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:24
- Re: Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), william(at)elan.net, 05:17
- Re: Confusion about draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 (SPF-Classic), Stephane Bortzmeyer, 05:09
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 00:27
May 22, 2005
- Re: SPF-council IRC logs for 2005-05-22, Frank Ellermann, 23:14
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Frank Ellermann, 22:05
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 21:58
- Sep 22 - Jan 03 (was: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01), Frank Ellermann, 21:39
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Frank Ellermann, 20:33
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Mark Shewmaker, 18:15
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Julian Mehnle, 17:53
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:32
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 17:14
- RE: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Scott Kitterman, 17:06
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Bill Taroli, 16:53
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Bill Taroli, 16:48
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Bill Taroli, 16:46
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:45
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:32
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN, Julian Mehnle, 16:22
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 16:12
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 15:31
- Re: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:01
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Mark Shewmaker, 14:58
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, David MacQuigg, 14:54
- RE: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Scott Kitterman, 13:09
- bug fix to draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01, wayne, 10:36
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 10:12
- For SPF council review: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 09:18
- Re: Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, wayne, 07:45
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Julian Mehnle, 07:42
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, David MacQuigg, 07:02
- Re: Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Scott Kitterman, 06:43
- Re: Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Scott Kitterman, 06:30
- Re: BTFOOM, Julian Mehnle, 05:47
- RE: For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Mark, 04:42
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Julian Mehnle, 03:19
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Bill Taroli, 03:04
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Julian Mehnle, 02:59
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Julian Mehnle, 02:53
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 02:17
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Bill Taroli, 02:07
- [Discuss] pointers for the SPF Council / Wayne, Frank Ellermann, 02:05
- Re: Re: BTFOOM, Julian Mehnle, 01:52
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 01:49
- For SPF Council review - FAIL PermError vs. NONE NXDOMAIN (was: BTFOOM), Frank Ellermann, 01:30
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Frank Ellermann, 00:31
May 21, 2005
- Re: Alternative Neutral IDs, Frank Ellermann, 23:56
- RE: Authentication vs. Authorization, william(at)elan.net, 23:03
- RE: Authentication vs. Authorization, Mark, 22:49
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Frank Ellermann, 22:26
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Scott Kitterman, 21:24
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Frank Ellermann, 21:23
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 21:03
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, wayne, 20:57
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Scott Kitterman, 20:08
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 19:43
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 19:40
- Re: PermError and NXDOMAIN in spf-01, wayne, 19:21
- Re: Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:50
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:40
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Paul Ficinski, 15:46
- Alternative Neutral IDs, David MacQuigg, 15:12
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Frank Ellermann, 14:54
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, David MacQuigg, 14:40
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 14:21
- Re: PermError in spf-01, Frank Ellermann, 12:28
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Bill Taroli, 11:38
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Bill Taroli, 11:34
- Re: Can the ID command be trusted ?, Frank Ellermann, 11:33
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Julian Mehnle, 10:19
- RE: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Scott Kitterman, 10:09
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Julian Mehnle, 09:56
- RE: Authentication vs. Authorization, Scott Kitterman, 09:51
- Can the ID command be trusted ?, David MacQuigg, 09:38
- RE: PermError in spf-01, Scott Kitterman, 09:29
- Re: Re: BTFOOM, Julian Mehnle, 08:53
- Re: Receiver Policy in the SPF spec, Julian Mehnle, 08:43
- Re: BTFOOM, Julian Mehnle, 08:33
- Re:, Julian Mehnle, 08:17
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Julian Mehnle, 08:02
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 07:55
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 07:16
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 06:43
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Paul Ficinski, 06:12
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Frank Ellermann, 05:08
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:09
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:02
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Arjen de Korte, 02:57
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Frank Ellermann, 02:11
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization, Bill Taroli, 02:00
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 01:31
- Re: BUT (was: a genuinely quotable quote!), David MacQuigg, 01:27
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Chris Haynes, 00:43
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Commerco WebMaster, 00:27
May 20, 2005
- RE: Re: BTFOOM, Mark, 23:48
- Re: Re: Authorize, william(at)elan.net, 23:19
- Re: Authorize, Frank Ellermann, 23:09
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Frank Ellermann, 22:56
- Re: Authorize (was: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition), william(at)elan.net, 22:54
- Re: Receiver Policy in the SPF spec, Frank Ellermann, 22:43
- RE: PermError in spf-01, Mark, 22:39
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 22:30
- Authorize (was: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition), Frank Ellermann, 22:11
- RE: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Mark, 22:09
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Frank Ellermann, 22:03
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Frank Ellermann, 21:48
- FYI - IESG, william(at)elan.net, 21:31
- PermError in spf-01, Frank Ellermann, 21:23
- Re: Re: IPv6 / a+ip6, Julian Mehnle, 18:29
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 18:09
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 17:52
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 17:41
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 17:35
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Bill Taroli, 17:28
- Re: Is the ID command hearsay ?, David MacQuigg, 16:56
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:30
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:19
- Re: Declaring an Identity, David MacQuigg, 14:19
- Re: Is the ID command hearsay ?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:11
- Is the ID command hearsay ?, David MacQuigg, 13:54
- fyi; The draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01 I-D is now on the IETF website, wayne, 13:29
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Commerco WebMaster, 12:44
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 12:37
- Re:, wayne, 12:33
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 12:19
- RE: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Scott Kitterman, 11:58
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Michael Hammer, 11:42
- Re: Authentication vs. Authorization (was: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition), Scott Kitterman, 11:37
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., william(at)elan.net, 11:30
- Receiver Policy in the SPF spec (Was: BTFOOM), wayne, 11:21
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 10:47
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 10:41
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:30
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 10:28
- Re: Canadian Task Force on Spam #1 Recommendation: Publish SPF records!, Julian Mehnle, 10:26
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:25
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:24
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 10:23
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Chris Haynes, 10:21
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 10:13
- Re: Declaring an Identity, wayne, 10:07
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Terry Fielder, 10:05
- Authentication vs. Authorization (was: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition), Julian Mehnle, 09:57
- Avoiding the DNS Hunt, David MacQuigg, 09:55
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Daniel Taylor, 09:50
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Terry Fielder, 09:49
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:49
- Re: Avoiding the DNS Hunt, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09:44
- Re: Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., wayne, 09:31
- Avoiding the DNS Hunt, David MacQuigg, 09:22
- Re: Declaring an Identity, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:48
- RE: Forwarding Authorization As A Sender Policy, Scott Kitterman, 08:11
- RE: BTFOOM, Scott Kitterman, 08:09
- Re: Forwarding Authorization As A Sender Policy, wayne, 07:19
- Re: BTFOOM, Raymond Neeves, 07:18
- Forwarding Authorization As A Sender Policy, Scott Kitterman, 07:05
- Re: Declaring an Identity, Daniel Taylor, 05:54
- RE: BTFOOM, Mark, 05:07
- RE: Re: internet draft: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt, Mark, 04:31
- RE: Declaring an Identity, Mark, 03:00
- Re: BTFOOM, Frank Ellermann, 01:56
- Re: Standards Strategy, David MacQuigg, 01:33
- Re: internet draft: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt, Frank Ellermann, 01:11
- Re: Declaring an Identity, David MacQuigg, 01:03
- Re: BTFOOM, wayne, 00:44
- Results from the SPF council review on I-D issues., wayne, 00:31
- Re: Standards Strategy, wayne, 00:18
May 19, 2005
- internet draft: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt, wayne, 23:53
- Re: Declaring an Identity, william(at)elan.net, 18:10
- Re: Standards Strategy, David MacQuigg, 17:56
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Bill Taroli, 17:41
- Declaring an Identity, David MacQuigg, 17:34
- BUT (was: a genuinely quotable quote!), Frank Ellermann, 17:31
- Re: Standards Strategy, Chuck Mead, 17:23
- a genuinely quotable quote!, Chuck Mead, 17:17
- Re: Standards Strategy, william(at)elan.net, 16:43
- Re: Standards Strategy, Frank Ellermann, 16:24
- Re: Council meeting, Meng Weng Wong, 15:12
- Re: Standards Strategy, David MacQuigg, 15:02
- Re: Standards Strategy, Frank Ellermann, 12:23
- Re: Standards Strategy, Michael Hammer, 11:46
- Standards Strategy, David MacQuigg, 09:58
- Council meeting, Chris Haynes, 01:42
- BTFOOM (was: SPF-council IRC logs for 2005-05-18), Frank Ellermann, 00:46
May 18, 2005
- Thursday (was: SPF-council IRC logs for 2005-05-18), Frank Ellermann, 23:02
- Re: IPv6 / a+ip6, Frank Ellermann, 22:33
- Re: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 22:33
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Frank Ellermann, 22:01
- (unknown), Scott Kitterman, 19:45
- Re: Inter-operability protocol, william(at)elan.net, 18:44
- Inter-operability protocol, David MacQuigg, 18:02
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:09
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:20
- Re: Block: pobox.com (fwd), Stuart D. Gathman, 15:58
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:54
- Block: pobox.com (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 15:09
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Chris Haynes, 14:46
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Commerco WebMaster, 13:46
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Michael Hammer, 13:17
- Re: FYI: Email Authentication Summit - emailauthentication.org, Michael Hammer, 12:59
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:19
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Commerco WebMaster, 12:06
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 11:23
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Chris Haynes, 10:11
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:33
- FYI: Email Authentication Summit - emailauthentication.org, william(at)elan.net, 08:24
- Re: IPv6 / a+ip6, wayne, 06:28
- Re: IPv6 / a+ip6 (Was: Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7), william(at)elan.net, 06:17
- RE: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 06:11
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 06:07
- RE: Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 05:46
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7, wayne, 05:45
- RE: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 05:36
- Re: IPv6 / a+ip6 (Was: Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7), wayne, 05:31
- Re: Re: Canadian Task Force on Spam #1 Recommendation: Publish SPF records!, James Couzens, 04:53
- RE: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Mark, 03:34
- Re: Industry Canada recommended best practices, Mark Jeftovic, 02:59
- Industry Canada recommended best practices, Mark Jeftovic, 02:57
- RE: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Mark, 01:44
- IPv6 / a+ip6 (Was: Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7), Jeroen Massar, 01:36
- RE: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Mark, 01:31
- Re: Canadian Task Force on Spam #1 Recommendation: Publish SPF records!, Frank Ellermann, 00:42
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Frank Ellermann, 00:33
- draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7 (was: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?), Frank Ellermann, 00:12
May 17, 2005
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7, william(at)elan.net, 23:37
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, william(at)elan.net, 22:05
- New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre7, wayne, 22:02
- Re: Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 21:36
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 21:25
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Bill Taroli, 20:53
- Canadian Task Force on Spam #1 Recommendation: Publish SPF records!, James Couzens, 20:48
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 20:29
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Frank Ellermann, 19:38
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 19:27
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 18:11
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:38
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:00
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 16:39
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 16:32
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:30
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Julian Mehnle, 16:12
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Julian Mehnle, 15:42
- Re: What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, Julian Mehnle, 15:40
- Re: For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:15
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 13:08
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Daniel Taylor, 12:56
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 12:40
- For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 12:37
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Mark Shewmaker, 12:31
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Daniel Taylor, 12:19
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 11:53
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, John A. Martin, 11:25
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, wayne, 10:39
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Michael Hammer, 10:29
- What to do about redirect= and NXDOMAIN?, wayne, 09:51
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Mark Shewmaker, 09:44
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 09:19
- RE: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Scott Kitterman, 09:08
- Don't forget the economics., Daniel Taylor, 08:38
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean, Julian Mehnle, 08:33
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Arjen de Korte, 08:29
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 08:26
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Julian Mehnle, 08:25
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 08:24
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Julian Mehnle, 08:15
- RE: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Scott Kitterman, 07:57
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:48
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, wayne, 07:47
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 07:46
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 07:32
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Stuart D. Gathman, 07:08
- Re: Declude, Sendmail, Santronics (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Theo Schlossnagle, 06:54
- Re: Simple method to prevent cross-customer forgery on shared MTAs, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:35
- Re: People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Hector Santos, 06:30
- Re: Simple method to prevent cross-customer forgery on shared MTAs, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:15
- Re: Simple method to prevent cross-customer forgery on shared MTAs, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:10
- Re: Declude, Sendmail, Santronics (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Hector Santos, 06:06
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Arjen de Korte, 05:59
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Frank Ellermann, 05:59
- Declude, Sendmail, Santronics (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Frank Ellermann, 05:50
- Re: Simple method to prevent cross-customer forgery on shared MTAs, Julian Mehnle, 05:39
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:35
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Arjen de Korte, 05:30
- People keep misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean (was: Time to start rejecting on neutral?), Julian Mehnle, 05:14
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Julian Mehnle, 05:00
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 04:23
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Hector Santos, 04:18
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Frank Ellermann, 02:34
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Frank Ellermann, 02:24
May 16, 2005
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Dave Warren, 21:10
- Simple method to prevent cross-customer forgery on shared MTAs, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:01
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:46
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:43
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 20:27
- RE: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Guy, 19:52
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 19:04
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Scott Kitterman, 18:53
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Scott Kitterman, 18:49
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:53
- Re: SRS for postfix yet?, John Capo, 16:02
- Re: Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Julian Mehnle, 13:39
- SRS for postfix yet?, Mark Jeftovic, 13:15
- Re: Shared MTA policy implementation idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:12
- Re: Shared MTA policy implementation idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:09
- Re: Shared MTA policy implementation idea, william(at)elan.net, 12:48
- Re: Shared MTA policy implementation idea, wayne, 12:29
- Re: Shared MTA policy implementation idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:21
- Time to start rejecting on neutral?, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:09
- Shared MTA policy implementation idea, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:02
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Julian Mehnle, 10:49
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Terry Fielder, 09:28
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 09:20
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chris Haynes, 09:17
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Terry Fielder, 05:28
May 15, 2005
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, Frank Ellermann, 19:40
- Size of draft (was: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?), Frank Ellermann, 19:30
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Frank Ellermann, 19:18
- Re: Suresh Ramasubramanian on SPF, Dave Warren, 18:56
- Suresh Ramasubramanian on SPF, wayne, 18:51
- Re: Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 10:56
- Re: Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, wayne, 10:41
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 10:38
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 10:18
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 10:03
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Julian Mehnle, 08:44
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 08:38
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Chuck Mead, 08:35
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:29
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 07:10
- Re: OT: SpamCop, Julian Mehnle, 06:54
- Re: Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Scott Kitterman, 05:36
- Re: Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chris Haynes, 02:17
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Frank Ellermann, 00:50
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chris Haynes, 00:24
May 14, 2005
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Frank Ellermann, 23:38
- OT: SC (was: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?), Frank Ellermann, 23:10
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Hector Santos, 22:08
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 21:32
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, Scott Kitterman, 19:17
- Re: Re: patch, Scott Kitterman, 18:04
- Re: Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chris Haynes, 12:20
- RE: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Mark, 09:42
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 09:11
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 08:47
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, wayne, 08:44
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, Julian Mehnle, 08:43
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Julian Mehnle, 08:32
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chuck Mead, 08:15
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Frank Ellermann, 07:42
- RE: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Mark, 07:27
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time? (was: patch), Chris Haynes, 06:35
- Re: MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time?, Chuck Mead, 06:16
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, william(at)elan.net, 06:05
- MUST SPF checking be done during SMTP time? (was: patch), Julian Mehnle, 05:08
- 2476bis (was: For SPF council review: Policy for shared MTAs), Frank Ellermann, 01:18
May 13, 2005
- Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, Frank Ellermann, 23:04
- Re: Re: patch, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:51
- Re: patch, Frank Ellermann, 22:11
- New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6, wayne, 15:33
- Re: Re: patch, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:18
- Re: Re: patch, Terry Fielder, 15:03
- Re: patch, wayne, 14:36
- RE: Agenda Items for 05-18-2005 Meeting, Scott Kitterman, 12:12
- RE: Re: List of DNS providers that support TXT, Scott Kitterman, 08:31
- Re: Re: List of DNS providers that support TXT, wayne, 07:23
- RE: Re: List of DNS providers that support TXT, Scott Kitterman, 07:12
- Re: For SPF council review: Policy for shared MTAs, Julian Mehnle, 06:29
- RE: Re: List of DNS providers that support TXT, Scott Kitterman, 05:42
May 12, 2005
- Re: List of DNS providers that support TXT, Frank Ellermann, 20:48
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Frank Ellermann, 20:29
- Re: A new result code for harmless permanent errors?, Frank Ellermann, 19:55
- Re: FW: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Frank Ellermann, 19:38
- Re: Fw: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Frank Ellermann, 19:14
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Frank Ellermann, 18:43
- Re: idnits, Frank Ellermann, 18:07
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Frank Ellermann, 17:13
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 16:54
- Re: Re: idnits, wayne, 16:35
- Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, Frank Ellermann, 16:34
- Re: Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 15:54
- Re: Re: idnits, william(at)elan.net, 15:49
- Re: idnits, Frank Ellermann, 15:30
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 15:00
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, wayne, 10:47
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Julian Mehnle, 10:18
- Re: For SPF council review: Policy for shared MTAs, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:42
- Re: For SPF council review: Policy for shared MTAs, Julian Mehnle, 08:53
- Re: For SPF council review: Policy for shared MTAs, Julian Mehnle, 08:44
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), sklist, 04:53
May 11, 2005
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, william(at)elan.net, 23:02
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, wayne, 22:56
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), wayne, 22:51
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, wayne, 21:55
- Re: Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, wayne, 20:40
- Re: Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 19:12
- RE: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", william(at)elan.net, 18:49
- RE: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Mark, 18:34
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Terry Fielder, 17:37
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", David MacQuigg, 16:27
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Terry Fielder, 15:39
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", David MacQuigg, 15:18
- RE: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Scott Kitterman, 13:48
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Julian Mehnle, 13:36
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", william(at)elan.net, 13:06
- Re: idnits, wayne, 12:53
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", David MacQuigg, 12:32
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Terry Fielder, 10:24
- RE: A new result code for harmless permanent errors? (was: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error...), Scott Kitterman, 10:09
- RE: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Scott Kitterman, 10:02
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", David MacQuigg, 09:36
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 07:12
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, Julian Mehnle, 05:38
- Re: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Julian Mehnle, 05:07
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, Scott Kitterman, 04:50
- Re: A new result code for harmless permanent errors? (was: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error...), Julian Mehnle, 04:45
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:10
- RE: X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark, 03:08
May 10, 2005
- Re: Fw: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Chris Haynes, 21:16
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, wayne, 21:09
- Re: Fw: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", wayne, 20:45
- Re: Re: FW: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", wayne, 20:38
- Fw: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", Chris Haynes, 20:35
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Michael Elliott, 20:31
- RE: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark, 20:03
- Re: A new result code for harmless permanent errors? (was: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error...), Scott Kitterman, 19:49
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, Scott Kitterman, 19:40
- Re: FW: Clarification on "RFC Editor Note", william(at)elan.net, 19:36
- RE: Re: NXDOMAIN, Mark, 17:53
- Re: Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, william(at)elan.net, 17:15
- Re: Where "We" went wrong - "Forwarding problem" revisited, David MacQuigg, 16:29
- A new result code for harmless permanent errors? (was: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error...), Julian Mehnle, 15:47
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, Julian Mehnle, 15:32
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- RE: Broken SPF Record?, Scott Kitterman, 14:02
- Re: Broken SPF Record?, william(at)elan.net, 13:53
- Broken SPF Record?, Scott Kitterman, 13:50
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 13:03
- Re: SUBMITTER patented ?? was For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 12:08
- RE: SUBMITTER patented ??, Scott Kitterman, 11:44
- RE: SUBMITTER patented ??, David MacQuigg, 11:38
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark Shewmaker, 11:16
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, David MacQuigg, 11:11
- RE: SUBMITTER patented ?? was For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Scott Kitterman, 10:51
- SUBMITTER patented ?? was For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, David MacQuigg, 10:30
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Julian Mehnle, 10:04
- List of DNS providers that support TXT, Scott Kitterman, 08:59
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark Shewmaker, 08:32
- Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, Frank Ellermann, 08:05
- Re: Authentication Headers, David MacQuigg, 07:41
- Re: options, scopes, protocols, flags, properties, Julian Mehnle, 06:51
- Re: Where "We" went wrong - "Forwarding problem" revisited, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:49
- Re: Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, william(at)elan.net, 06:20
- Where "We" went wrong - "Forwarding problem" revisited, Scott Kitterman, 06:11
- options, scopes, protocols, flags, properties, Frank Ellermann, 06:04
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Julian Mehnle, 05:54
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Frank Ellermann, 05:41
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark Shewmaker, 05:41
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:37
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:31
- Re: Scoping Syntax for spf1 records, Frank Ellermann, 05:26
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Julian Mehnle, 05:21
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 04:59
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Dave Warren, 04:56
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark Shewmaker, 04:42
- Re: X-trust-previous-hop:, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:12
- X-trust-previous-hop:, Mark Shewmaker, 04:09
- Scoping Syntax for spf1 records (was: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED), william(at)elan.net, 03:59
- Re: Authentication Headers, Mark Shewmaker, 03:50
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 02:57
May 09, 2005
- RE: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Scott Kitterman, 20:33
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Stuart D. Gathman, 19:56
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 19:22
- Re: MAY vs. SHOULD reject different answers, Julian Mehnle, 19:08
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 19:03
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 18:48
- idnits (was: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED), Frank Ellermann, 18:33
- Re: Question on who created current design for spf.pobox.com, Frank Ellermann, 17:57
- Re: MAY vs. SHOULD reject different answers, Frank Ellermann, 17:47
- Burden of proof (was: HELO versus MAILFROM results), Julian Mehnle, 17:24
- The point of HELO checking over simple RBL checking, Julian Mehnle, 17:16
- The point of HELO (and MAIL FROM) checking, Julian Mehnle, 17:09
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Michael Elliott, 16:56
- Authentication Headers, David MacQuigg, 16:19
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Julian Mehnle, 15:30
- "additional-scopes" modifier (was: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED), Julian Mehnle, 14:50
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, Mark Shewmaker, 14:46
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, David MacQuigg, 14:10
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, David MacQuigg, 12:38
- Re: Question on who created current design for spf.pobox.com, wayne, 10:33
- RE: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Scott Kitterman, 09:22
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 06:06
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 05:40
- Re: MAY vs. SHOULD reject different answers, Julian Mehnle, 05:06
- RE: Question on who created current design for spf.pobox.com, Bruce Barnes, 03:42
- Re: Question on who created current design for spf.pobox.com, william(at)elan.net, 03:17
- Question on who created current design for spf.pobox.com, william(at)elan.net, 03:15
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, william(at)elan.net, 02:01
May 08, 2005
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 20:16
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 20:07
- MAY vs. SHOULD reject different answers (was: NOT RECOMMENDED), Frank Ellermann, 19:02
- Re: NONE vs. PermError, Frank Ellermann, 18:27
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Julian Mehnle, 17:01
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 16:49
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Julian Mehnle, 16:29
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 16:04
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 15:24
- Re: Can somebody create a consolidated, incremental changelog?, wayne, 14:15
- Re: Can somebody create a consolidated, incremental changelog?, wayne, 11:55
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 10:57
- Can somebody create a consolidated, incremental changelog? (was: changes since draft-lentczner-spf-00), Julian Mehnle, 10:37
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, william(at)elan.net, 10:28
- Re: trusted-forwarder trouble, wayne, 10:00
- Re: NONE vs. PermError, Julian Mehnle, 09:08
- Re: Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 08:19
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, william(at)elan.net, 07:56
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 07:55
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 07:49
- Re: NXDOMAIN, Frank Ellermann, 06:20
- s/prefix/sign/ and 20 seconds for foo.slow.sp.am (was: -01pre5), Frank Ellermann, 04:54
May 07, 2005
- Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 21:49
- NONE vs. PermError (was: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5), Frank Ellermann, 20:35
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Frank Ellermann, 19:41
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, Frank Ellermann, 19:24
- changes since draft-lentczner-spf-00, wayne, 19:21
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Scott Kitterman, 19:06
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Julian Mehnle, 18:49
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 18:33
- Re: Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Scott Kitterman, 18:32
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 18:13
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 17:47
- Let's not lose focus! (and: For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs), Julian Mehnle, 16:36
- Re: For Wayne, wayne, 13:09
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 11:36
- For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs, Scott Kitterman, 11:22
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 11:07
- Ta-ta for now, george+spf, 11:03
- For Wayne, Radu Hociung, 10:57
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 10:51
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 10:50
- For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED, Scott Kitterman, 10:40
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Daniel Taylor, 10:28
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, David MacQuigg, 09:49
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 09:46
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 09:39
- Re: trusted-forwarder trouble, Radu Hociung, 09:17
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 08:35
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, wayne, 08:06
- Re: Re: -01pre5, wayne, 07:50
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 06:44
- RE: NOT RECOMMENDED (was: -01pre5), Mark, 05:37
- Re: NOT RECOMMENDED, Julian Mehnle, 05:09
- RE: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark, 04:22
- NOT RECOMMENDED (was: -01pre5), Frank Ellermann, 02:55
- Re: Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, Ralf Doeblitz, 01:43
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 01:42
- Re: -01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 00:15
May 06, 2005
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, william(at)elan.net, 23:49
- Re: trusted-forwarder trouble, wayne, 20:25
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 19:53
- Re: DNS matters & Wildcards, David MacQuigg, 19:37
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 19:25
- Re: -01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 19:01
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 18:37
- Re: -01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 18:32
- trusted-forwarder trouble, Radu Hociung, 18:31
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 18:20
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 17:52
- DNS matters & Wildcards, william(at)elan.net, 17:30
- Re: Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, David MacQuigg, 15:21
- RE: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark, 15:02
- Re: New DNS Record Types, David MacQuigg, 13:31
- Re: Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, Commerco WebMaster, 13:11
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:43
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 12:18
- Re: Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, william(at)elan.net, 12:16
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 11:58
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Daniel Taylor, 11:53
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 11:16
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark Shewmaker, 11:13
- Re: Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, wayne, 10:59
- Re: New DNS Record Types, wayne, 10:51
- Re: Open letter to the SPF Council, Chuck Mead, 10:45
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, wayne, 10:02
- RE: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark, 09:30
- Re: Open letter to the SPF Council, wayne, 09:24
- Re: -01pre5, wayne, 09:21
- RE: New DNS Record Types, Scott Kitterman, 08:39
- Wildcards - Downgrade HOLD to SELL, David MacQuigg, 08:30
- Re: New DNS Record Types, David MacQuigg, 08:26
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 06:48
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 06:28
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 06:02
- RE: Open letter to the SPF Council, Scott Kitterman, 05:38
- Re: -01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 05:19
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 05:01
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 04:53
May 05, 2005
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 23:51
- For SPF council review: MUST accept source routes, Frank Ellermann, 23:10
- Re: New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 23:05
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 23:05
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 22:43
- Re: Re: -01pre5, wayne, 22:17
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 22:09
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 22:03
- Re: New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM results, wayne, 21:49
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 21:35
- Re: -01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 21:22
- Re: Outstanding draft issues that I've missed (was: HELO versus MAILFROM results), Stuart D. Gathman, 21:02
- Re: Re: -01pre5, wayne, 20:38
- Re: Re: -01pre5, Radu Hociung, 20:31
- Re: Outstanding draft issues that I've missed, william(at)elan.net, 20:25
- Re: Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, wayne, 20:22
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 20:22
- Re: -01pre5 (was: -01pre4), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 20:18
- Re: Outstanding draft issues that I've missed, wayne, 20:10
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 20:09
- Re: Outstanding draft issues that I've missed (was: HELO versus MAILFROM results), Michael Elliott, 19:55
- Re: Re: -01pre5, wayne, 19:49
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, wayne, 19:34
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 19:24
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Julian Mehnle, 19:24
- Outstanding draft issues that I've missed (was: HELO versus MAILFROM results), wayne, 19:23
- -01pre5 (was: -01pre4), Frank Ellermann, 18:59
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 18:34
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 18:12
- Re: -01pre4, wayne, 18:08
- Re: -01pre4, william(at)elan.net, 17:39
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 17:24
- Re: -01pre4, Julian Mehnle, 17:21
- Re: -01pre4, Julian Mehnle, 17:07
- RE: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Scott Kitterman, 13:00
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Daniel Taylor, 13:00
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 12:52
- SPF uses TXT records - PERIOD! - never was New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM results, Hector Santos, 07:33
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Ralf Doeblitz, 01:10
May 04, 2005
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:03
- The return of the spf-announce mailing list., wayne, 20:11
- Re: New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 18:59
- New DNS Record Types - was HELO versus MAILFROM results, David MacQuigg, 18:20
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 15:29
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 15:18
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:44
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 14:42
- Re: Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 14:07
- Re: Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Radu Hociung, 12:43
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 12:24
- Re: Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Theo Schlossnagle, 12:22
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- Re: Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:08
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:58
- Re: Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Radu Hociung, 11:30
- Re: Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Leonard Mills, 11:11
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 11:08
- RE: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Scott Kitterman, 10:19
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 10:11
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, wayne, 10:07
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Rene Barbier, 09:50
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:50
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 09:21
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, wayne, 08:53
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Philip Gladstone, 08:46
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:37
- RE: If my server does not have an SPF record?, Mark, 08:37
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 08:20
- RE: If my server does not have an SPF record?, Scott Kitterman, 08:11
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 08:10
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Radu Hociung, 07:56
- RE: If my server does not have an SPF record?, Ball, DJ, 07:44
- RE: If my server does not have an SPF record?, Scott Kitterman, 07:40
- If my server does not have an SPF record?, Ball, DJ, 07:33
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Philip Gladstone, 07:31
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, wayne, 07:16
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 07:05
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Radu Hociung, 06:52
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Radu Hociung, 06:23
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Marc Chametzky, 05:24
- Re: -01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 01:53
- Re: HELO versus MAILFROM results, Frank Ellermann, 00:07
May 03, 2005
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Chris Haynes, 23:39
- Re: -01pre5 (was: -01pre4), wayne, 23:38
- HELO versus MAILFROM results, Mark Shewmaker, 23:36
- -01pre5 (was: -01pre4), Frank Ellermann, 23:03
- Re: How useful are per-user policies?, Frank Ellermann, 20:41
- How useful are per-user policies?, Radu Hociung, 19:37
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Permerror = Message should be rejected?, Frank Ellermann, 16:21
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Frank Ellermann, 15:52
- Re: Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Permerror = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 15:51
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Permerror = Message should be rejected?, Frank Ellermann, 15:30
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, Frank Ellermann, 15:05
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 14:33
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, wayne, 13:12
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, wayne, 12:53
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, wayne, 12:17
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Boyd Lynn Gerber, 08:49
- Re: The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, David MacQuigg, 08:02
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Marc Chametzky, 05:57
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 05:45
- Re: spf with online forms, Scott Kitterman, 05:24
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Daniel Taylor, 05:22
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error= Message should be rejected?, Mark, 00:08
May 02, 2005
- The (almost) final SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre5, wayne, 23:25
- Re: spf with online forms, wayne, 21:43
- Re: spf with online forms, wayne, 21:30
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:15
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, wayne, 20:56
- Re: Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 19:19
- Re: spf with online forms, Birger Brunswiek, 15:31
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Frank Ellermann, 15:06
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:42
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Marc Chametzky, 14:22
- RE: spf with online forms, Scott Kitterman, 13:55
- Re: spf with online forms, Matt, 13:53
- Re: spf with online forms, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:52
- RE: spf with online forms, Scott Kitterman, 13:48
- Re: spf with online forms, Matt, 13:47
- Re: spf with online forms, Matt, 13:40
- Re: spf with online forms, Roger B.A. Klorese, 13:38
- Re: spf with online forms, Bruce Barnes, 13:29
- Re: spf with online forms, Andrew Gutkowski, 13:29
- Re: spf with online forms, Roger B.A. Klorese, 13:27
- RE: help on setup, Christopher Carter, 13:21
- Re: spf with online forms, Commerco WebMaster, 13:17
- Re: spf with online forms, Roger B.A. Klorese, 13:12
- Re: spf with online forms, Andrew Gutkowski, 13:05
- RE: spf with online forms, Scott Kitterman, 12:57
- Re: spf with online forms, Chris Haynes, 12:54
- Re: spf with online forms, Roger B.A. Klorese, 12:45
- libspf2 is required to build this program., Renato Dervelan - T.I. - Americanflex, 12:29
- spf with online forms, Andrew Gutkowski, 12:17
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Daniel Taylor, 11:41
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, william(at)elan.net, 11:40
- RE: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 11:33
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Daniel Taylor, 11:17
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:50
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Daniel Taylor, 06:24
- Re: For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be rejected?, Daniel Taylor, 06:15