SPF Discuss (date)
August 31, 2005
- [spf-discuss] ... disgusted by the IAB appeals, Frank Ellermann, 18:05
- [spf-discuss] ... disgusted by the IAB appeals, Frank Ellermann, 17:30
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Scott Kitterman, 15:35
- [spf-discuss] News article: Could Microsoft Lose IETF Backing for Sender ID?, wayne, 15:06
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Bashar, 14:55
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Craig Whitmore, 14:45
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Terry Fielder, 14:34
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Mark Shewmaker, 14:24
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Bashar, 13:44
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Craig Whitmore, 13:13
- Re: [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Scott Kitterman, 12:36
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, dejanspf, 11:28
- [spf-discuss] DomainDNS (DD) - new free DNS services that supports SPF, Bashar, 11:12
- Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822, Tony Finch, 10:39
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, Dennis Willson, 09:39
- RE: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, Herb Martin, 09:32
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, johnp, 09:17
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, Scott Kitterman, 09:07
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, dejanspf, 08:59
- Re: [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, johnp, 08:50
- [spf-discuss] this is correct ?, dejanspf, 08:43
- Re: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, wayne, 06:36
- Re: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, wayne, 06:32
- RE: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, Kelly, Michael, 06:31
- Re: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, Terry Fielder, 06:18
- Re: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, johnp, 06:05
- RE: [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, Kelly, Michael, 06:04
- [spf-discuss] Andy Newton is disgusted by the IAB appeals, wayne, 05:45
- Re: [spf-discuss] SPF or SenderID ..., wayne, 05:35
- Re: [spf-discuss] draft-lyon-senderid-core, wayne, 05:33
- Re: [spf-discuss] draft-lyon-senderid-core, Dick St.Peters, 05:20
August 30, 2005
- [spf-discuss] SPF or SenderID ..., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:33
- [spf-discuss] Re: draft-lyon-senderid-core, Frank Ellermann, 16:40
- Re: [spf-discuss] draft-lyon-senderid-core, Scott Kitterman, 16:10
- [spf-discuss] draft-lyon-senderid-core, Frank Ellermann, 16:02
- [spf-discuss] Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822, Brian E Carpenter, 02:12
August 29, 2005
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822, william(at)elan.net, 13:56
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Seth Goodman, 12:40
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Seth Goodman, 12:03
- Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822, Frank Ellermann, 11:11
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: The problems with SPF, Hector Santos, 09:06
- [spf-discuss] Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is inconsistant with RFC2822, william(at)elan.net, 08:29
- [spf-discuss] Re: The problems with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 08:17
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Dick St.Peters, 07:27
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Brian E Carpenter, 06:05
August 27, 2005
- Re: [spf-council] Re: [spf-discuss] website and openspf domain, wayne, 20:33
- Re: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Dick St.Peters, 19:52
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Nicholas Staff, 15:28
- [spf-discuss] RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Nicholas Staff, 15:24
- [spf-discuss] RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, william(at)elan.net, 12:01
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: promoting softfail to fail, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:06
- Re: [spf-discuss] promoting softfail to fail, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:54
- RE: [spf-discuss] Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Scott Kitterman, 08:58
- RE: [spf-discuss] Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records?(paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Scott Kitterman, 08:44
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: promoting softfail to fail, David, 08:07
- Re: [spf-discuss] promoting softfail to fail, David, 08:02
- Re: [spf-discuss] INCLUDE Statement, Hector Santos, 07:29
- [spf-discuss] Re: promoting softfail to fail, Frank Ellermann, 07:28
- Re: [spf-discuss] promoting softfail to fail, Hector Santos, 07:20
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, wayne, 06:31
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, wayne, 06:28
- RE: [spf-council] Re: [spf-discuss] website and openspf domain, Mark, 06:19
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Hector Santos, 06:14
- Re: [spf-discuss] INCLUDE Statement, wayne, 05:49
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Richard Bollinger, 05:24
- [spf-discuss] promoting softfail to fail, David, 04:02
- [spf-discuss] Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Frank Ellermann, 03:50
- [spf-discuss] INCLUDE Statement, Frank Ellermann, 03:30
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 02:19
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 02:00
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 01:42
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Hector Santos, 01:23
- [spf-discuss] INCLUDE Statement [was [OT]Calling Hector Santos], Hector Santos, 01:08
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 01:07
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 00:56
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Hector Santos, 00:49
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Hector Santos, 00:24
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 00:04
August 26, 2005
- [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Frank Ellermann, 20:47
- [spf-discuss] Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Frank Ellermann, 20:28
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 20:06
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 19:23
- [spf-discuss] Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 18:12
- [spf-discuss] Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Frank Ellermann, 17:57
- [spf-discuss] Re: The problems with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 17:38
- Re: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Dennis Willson, 17:33
- [spf-discuss] Re: The problems with SPF, Frank Ellermann, 17:30
- [spf-discuss] Re: website and openspf domain, Frank Ellermann, 16:52
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 16:42
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 16:30
- [spf-discuss] RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, william(at)elan.net, 16:21
- Re: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Craig Whitmore, 16:12
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 16:11
- RE: [spf-discuss] Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Herb Martin, 16:09
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Richard Bollinger, 16:04
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Hector Santos, 15:59
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 15:48
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Richard Bollinger, 15:43
- Re: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Dennis Willson, 15:41
- RE: [spf-discuss] SMTP Question, Herb Martin, 15:38
- [spf-discuss] SMTP Question, Dennis Willson, 15:24
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Daniel Taylor, 15:19
- [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 15:11
- Re: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Dick St.Peters, 15:10
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, wayne, 15:09
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Seth Goodman, 15:07
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 15:03
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Bruce Barnes, 14:45
- Re: [spf-discuss] Hector's test script - Minor error, Hector Santos, 14:45
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, wayne, 14:24
- RE: [spf-discuss] The problems with SPF, Herb Martin, 14:09
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 14:07
- Hector's test script - Minor error, Richard Bollinger, 13:37
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Alan DeKok, 13:37
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 13:31
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 12:56
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 12:51
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 12:49
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:44
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 12:30
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:29
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 12:24
- Re: The problems with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:19
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflictwith referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 12:14
- RE: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:01
- Re: Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Hector Santos, 11:44
- Re: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 11:38
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 11:27
- RE: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Jeff Macdonald, 11:22
- Re: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Dotzero, 11:20
- Re: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Sam Hartman, 11:10
- Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Hector Santos, 10:56
- Re: The problems with SPF, Hector Santos, 10:47
- Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:31
- RE: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 10:23
- Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Hector Santos, 10:03
- RE: The problems with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:52
- PS ...Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Hector Santos, 09:44
- RE: The problems with SPF, Dan Field, 09:15
- Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Jeremy Doupe, 09:07
- RE: The problems with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:06
- Re: SPF receivers are weak link, Hector Santos, 08:50
- Re: The problems with SPF, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:49
- RE: The problems with SPF, Dan Field, 08:36
- RE: The problems with SPF, Dick St.Peters, 08:23
- Re: The problems with SPF, Brian G. Peterson, 08:17
- Re: The problems with SPF, Daniel Taylor, 08:09
- Re: The problems with SPF, Julian Mehnle, 08:03
- Re: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 07:53
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Andrew Newton, 07:45
- Re: website and openspf domain, wayne, 07:33
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, wayne, 06:59
- Re: The problems with SPF, David Woodhouse, 06:51
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters, 06:32
- RE: The problems with SPF, Dan Field, 03:47
- website and openspf domain, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:07
- Re: The problems with SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:54
- RE: The problems with SPF, Dan Field, 02:34
- Re: The problems with SPF, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 02:27
- The problems with SPF, Dan Field, 01:49
- Updated SPF validator and a new checker, Peter Karsai, 01:15
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Matthew Elvey, 00:38
August 25, 2005
- John Levine says: Maybe the IETF Won't Publish SPF and Sender-ID as Experimental RFCs After All, wayne, 18:49
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 16:55
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 16:54
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Frank Ellermann, 15:35
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Scott Kitterman, 15:13
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 14:23
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Matthew Elvey, 14:14
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 14:05
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Michael Weiner, 13:44
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 13:35
- RE: Re: Supporting the appeal, Scott Kitterman, 13:34
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:26
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 13:21
- Re: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Scott Kitterman, 13:08
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Theodore Ts'o, 12:58
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 12:55
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Frank Ellermann, 12:52
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 12:50
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, Matthew Elvey, 12:32
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 12:28
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 12:25
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Dave Crocker, 12:08
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Daniel Taylor, 12:08
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Bill Sommerfeld, 12:06
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 12:06
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Dennis Willson, 12:05
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 11:58
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 11:54
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 11:48
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 11:27
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 11:27
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Ned Freed, 11:26
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Bill Sommerfeld, 11:08
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Daniel Taylor, 10:22
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 10:17
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, 10:14
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 10:12
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 09:51
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 08:58
- SPF receivers are weak link, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:46
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 08:33
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:21
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 08:19
- Re: [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Hector Santos, 08:07
- [OT]Calling Hector Santos, Scott Kitterman, 06:28
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Frank Ellermann, 05:23
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Frank Ellermann, 05:00
- RE: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Allyn Wade, 01:44
August 24, 2005
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, william(at)elan.net, 18:04
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, wayne, 17:53
- Re: Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Scott Kitterman, 17:29
- Is SenderID supposed to stumble on garbage records? (paging Jim Lyon) C&C, Matthew Elvey, 16:30
- Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, Julian Mehnle, 15:45
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters, 14:01
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Brian G. Peterson, 13:22
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 12:49
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters, 11:57
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Hector Santos, 11:41
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 09:26
- Re: Supporting the appeal, Frank Ellermann, 08:56
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 08:50
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 08:16
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 07:24
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 07:17
- Re: Re: Supporting the appeal, Julian Mehnle, 07:05
- Re: Supporting the appeal, Julian Mehnle, 06:59
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Terry Fielder, 05:48
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Hector Santos, 02:48
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Hector Santos, 02:30
August 23, 2005
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Scott Kitterman, 21:39
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 21:17
- Re: Re: Supporting the appeal, Scott Kitterman, 20:33
- Re: Supporting the appeal, Frank Ellermann, 20:25
- Re: Supporting the appeal, Frank Ellermann, 20:15
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 19:56
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, Scott Kitterman, 19:29
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 19:27
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 18:39
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:31
- Re: Supporting the appeal, william(at)elan.net, 17:18
- Re: Supporting the appeal - Signatures, Commerco WebMaster, 16:58
- Re: Supporting the appeal, Julian Mehnle, 15:54
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 15:52
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 15:46
- Supporting the appeal, Mark Shewmaker, 15:31
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Mark Shewmaker, 15:14
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 15:04
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 14:31
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:06
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, johnp, 13:50
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 13:22
- Re: FUD in Meng's "What To Do", wayne, 12:43
- FUD in Meng's "What To Do", Matthew Elvey, 11:51
- RE: Amazon.com SPF record, Brad Owen, 11:19
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, Jonathan Gardner, 10:51
- Re: status of the SPF I-D, wayne, 10:21
- Re: Digest 1.951 for spf-discuss, administrator, 10:10
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 09:15
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, Mark Shewmaker, 09:12
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 09:11
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 09:04
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 08:57
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 08:34
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Julian Mehnle, 07:34
- MICROSOFT OPPOSES NZ ANTI-SPAM BILL, Hector Santos, 05:46
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Hector Santos, 05:13
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Commerco WebMaster, 04:51
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, wayne, 02:14
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, johnp, 00:03
August 22, 2005
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, johnp, 23:57
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, Craig Whitmore, 23:48
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, wayne, 23:27
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, wayne, 23:20
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, william(at)elan.net, 22:51
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 21:49
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, Patrick Beckhelm, 21:42
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 20:35
- Re: Re: Draft IETF appeal, Mark Shewmaker, 19:05
- Re: Amazon.com SPF record, Craig Whitmore, 18:28
- Amazon.com SPF record, Brad Owen, 17:57
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 17:44
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Mark Shewmaker, 16:26
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Julian Mehnle, 15:57
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Julian Mehnle, 15:11
- Re: Draft IETF appeal, Frank Ellermann, 14:37
- Re: Effectiveness of compliance testing, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:16
- Draft IETF appeal, Julian Mehnle, 14:06
- Re: Effectiveness of compliance testing, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:55
- Re: Effectiveness of compliance testing, administrator, 13:41
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Dennis Willson, 13:24
- RE: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:04
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:01
- Re: Effectiveness of compliance testing - was: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:48
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Jason Gurtz, 12:23
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Dennis Willson, 12:00
- RE: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Seth Goodman, 11:58
- RE: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Scott Kitterman, 11:38
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Dennis Willson, 11:03
- RE: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Scott Kitterman, 10:41
- RE: Effectiveness of compliance testing - was: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Herb Martin, 10:39
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 10:29
- Re: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Dennis Willson, 10:24
- RE: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Kelly, Michael, 09:04
- RE: OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Scott Kitterman, 08:18
- OT: SMTP pre-filter server, Kelly, Michael, 08:09
- Re: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Bill IconSystemsNetwork.com, 07:21
- Effectiveness of compliance testing - was: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, David MacQuigg, 06:56
August 21, 2005
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 21:02
- Re: Re: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:43
- Re: Re: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:38
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Dotzero, 20:13
- Re: Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, wayne, 19:45
- Re: Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, wayne, 19:33
- Re: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Scott Kitterman, 18:18
- Re: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Frank Ellermann, 16:23
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Frank Ellermann, 15:59
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Frank Ellermann, 15:03
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Frank Ellermann, 14:26
- Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Frank Ellermann, 12:37
- Re: Re: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Daniel Taylor, 11:50
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 11:46
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 11:14
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Scott Kitterman, 10:41
- Re: Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, william(at)elan.net, 09:46
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 09:15
- Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Frank Ellermann, 08:59
- Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Frank Ellermann, 08:38
- Re: Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, johnp, 00:55
August 20, 2005
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Seth Goodman, 18:19
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman, 17:59
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Scott Kitterman, 16:57
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, william(at)elan.net, 16:50
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Scott Kitterman, 16:27
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, william(at)elan.net, 15:19
- RE: Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Scott Kitterman, 14:46
- RE: Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Seth Goodman, 13:49
- Re: No more xxxx=yes please, Frank Ellermann, 13:41
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:52
- Re: Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Frank Ellermann, 12:25
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, Frank Ellermann, 11:57
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 11:09
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman, 10:41
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Scott Kitterman, 09:13
August 19, 2005
- Re: CNAME chain letters, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:21
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 21:52
- update on GoDaddy's SPF wizard, wayne, 21:48
- CNAME chain letters, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:17
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:18
- Exchange 2003 SP2 beta now available?, wayne, 19:34
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 19:31
- status of the SPF I-D, wayne, 19:18
- Re: Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, wayne, 19:06
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters, 14:58
- RE: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Seth Goodman, 13:56
- RE: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman, 12:19
- RE: No more xxxx=yes please (was: possibilities for 2822), Seth Goodman, 12:04
- Hole in spfmilter 0.95, Daniel Taylor, 07:09
- Re: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:39
- RE: Re: SPF Filter Questions, Scott Kitterman, 06:08
- RE: No more xxxx=yes please (was: possibilities for 2822), Scott Kitterman, 05:57
August 18, 2005
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Frank Ellermann, 22:54
- No more xxxx=yes please (was: possibilities for 2822), Frank Ellermann, 22:26
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Dick St.Peters, 12:31
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Stuart D. Gathman, 11:45
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 10:59
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Scott Kitterman, 10:48
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, johnp, 10:46
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Daniel Taylor, 10:41
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Scott Kitterman, 10:38
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:36
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Bill IconSystemsNetwork.com, 10:30
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, johnp, 09:58
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:35
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Stuart D. Gathman, 09:25
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Terry Fielder, 08:28
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Scott Kitterman, 08:16
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Bill IconSystemsNetwork.com, 08:10
- Re: SPF Filter Questions, Bill IconSystemsNetwork.com, 08:05
- RE: SPF Filter Questions, Scott Kitterman, 07:43
- SPF Filter Questions, Bill IconSystemsNetwork.com, 07:41
- RE: SPF Filter Questions, Dan Field, 07:41
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Dick St.Peters, 07:33
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Dick St.Peters, 05:44
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Scott Kitterman, 05:23
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Graham Murray, 05:21
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 02:29
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Chris Haynes, 01:54
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), johnp, 00:54
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 00:48
August 17, 2005
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Scott Kitterman, 23:09
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 22:53
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Scott Kitterman, 22:42
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman, 22:14
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 21:04
- RE: Re: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman, 20:54
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Scott Kitterman, 20:38
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:08
- Re: Re: possibilities for 2822, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:02
- RE: Re: possibilities for 2822, Seth Goodman, 19:10
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 18:37
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 18:00
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Frank Ellermann, 17:36
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 17:21
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:12
- Re: possibilities for 2822, Frank Ellermann, 17:07
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), william(at)elan.net, 16:55
- Re: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:52
- RE: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:24
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Daniel Taylor, 16:15
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), johnp, 16:11
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), william(at)elan.net, 16:02
- RE: Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Seth Goodman, 15:21
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 14:56
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman, 14:45
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Tony Finch, 14:14
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 14:13
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman, 13:37
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman, 13:26
- RE: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 13:23
- Recipient Rewriting Scheme, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:20
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Dick St.Peters, 12:53
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Scott Kitterman, 12:47
- RE: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Seth Goodman, 12:41
- Re: possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Stuart D. Gathman, 12:21
- possibilities for 2822 (was SPF implementations), Seth Goodman, 11:19
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Scott Kitterman, 07:25
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Dick St.Peters, 07:16
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 05:08
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Chris Haynes, 02:26
August 16, 2005
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 17:40
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 16:30
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 15:39
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Dennis Willson, 15:06
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, william(at)elan.net, 15:03
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 14:47
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 14:31
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 14:13
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Dick St.Peters, 14:11
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, william(at)elan.net, 14:00
- Re: Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Scott Kitterman, 13:58
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 13:41
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Frank Ellermann, 13:27
- Re: unauthorized forwarders and dual DSNs, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:31
- Any actions coming in regards to approval of SID drafts for RFC and their IETF "approved" reuse of v=spf1 records ?, william(at)elan.net, 12:04
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Herb Martin, 11:53
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Håkon Alstadheim, 11:35
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS (was: SPF implementations), Tony Finch, 11:00
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:59
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Scott Kitterman, 10:53
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, william(at)elan.net, 10:40
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Dennis Willson, 10:38
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS, Scott Kitterman, 10:26
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS (was: SPF implementations), william(at)elan.net, 10:21
- Re: ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS (was: SPF implementations), Tony Finch, 10:11
- ESMTPA vs. ESMTPS (was: SPF implementations), Frank Ellermann, 09:41
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:04
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Arjen de Korte, 07:41
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Scott Kitterman, 07:39
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Graham Murray, 07:35
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:17
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Jeremy Doupe, 06:56
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Scott Kitterman, 06:45
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:42
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:38
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 06:33
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Dick St.Peters, 06:02
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Scott Kitterman, 05:27
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Håkon Alstadheim, 02:45
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Graham Murray, 02:14
- Re: unauthorized forwarders and dual DSNs, Arjen de Korte, 00:35
August 15, 2005
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 18:14
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 17:50
- unauthorized forwarders and dual DSNs, Stuart D. Gathman, 17:35
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:56
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Dick St.Peters, 13:14
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 13:01
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Seth Goodman, 12:39
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:07
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 10:18
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 10:04
- Re: Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets (Was several threads on type 99), Daniel Taylor, 05:53
August 14, 2005
- Re: Re: SPF implementations, Ralf Doeblitz, 22:25
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:04
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:58
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 16:48
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 16:40
- RE: SPF implementations, Seth Goodman, 16:23
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 15:22
- Re: Update on Broken SPF Records, Frank Ellermann, 14:56
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Scott Kitterman, 13:22
- Re: SPF implementations, Daniel Taylor, 10:05
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Herb Martin, 08:42
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Scott Kitterman, 07:33
August 13, 2005
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Herb Martin, 23:32
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Scott Kitterman, 22:35
- RE: Update on Broken SPF Records, Herb Martin, 22:04
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, spf-team, 21:40
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 18:44
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:38
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Seth Goodman, 17:14
- Update on Broken SPF Records, Craig Whitmore, 16:00
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 14:43
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:03
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:47
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Seth Goodman, 12:23
- RE: Re: SPF implementations, Seth Goodman, 12:03
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 10:35
- RE: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Scott Kitterman, 09:46
- Re: SPF implementations, Frank Ellermann, 07:16
August 12, 2005
- RE: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Ralf Doeblitz, 23:18
- Re: SPF implementations, Scott Kitterman, 17:17
- Re: SPF implementations, Mike, 16:31
- SPF implementations, Dennis Willson, 14:56
- RE: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Scott Kitterman, 12:52
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 12:47
- Re: We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, Frank Ellermann, 12:39
- Re: Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets, Frank Ellermann, 12:14
- RE: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Scott Kitterman, 12:03
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:00
- Re: Re: We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, johnp, 11:56
- RE: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Scott Kitterman, 11:48
- RE: Re: We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, Scott Kitterman, 11:45
- Re: Re: We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, johnp, 11:41
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 11:37
- Re: We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, Frank Ellermann, 11:26
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, william(at)elan.net, 10:55
- Re: Migration to SPF type99, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:09
- Re: Migration to SPF type99, Commerco WebMaster, 09:33
- We are *not* required to migrate to type99 SPF DNS RRs, wayne, 09:02
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:52
- Re: Migration to SPF type99, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:50
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:47
- Re: Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets (Was several threads on type 99), Alex van den Bogaerdt, 08:45
- RE: Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets (Was several threads on type 99), Scott Kitterman, 08:39
- Re: Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets (Was several threads on type 99), Daniel Taylor, 08:30
- Interpreting Results From Multiple "Identical" RR Sets (Was several threads on type 99), Scott Kitterman, 07:59
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, johnp, 01:40
- Re: Migration to SPF type99, johnp, 01:33
August 11, 2005
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 19:41
- Migration to SPF type99, Commerco WebMaster, 19:36
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 16:43
- Voting in SDOs considered harmful (was: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed.), Frank Ellermann, 15:11
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, william(at)elan.net, 14:35
- Re: Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 14:34
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 14:07
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Frank Ellermann, 14:06
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 13:53
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 13:46
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Frank Ellermann, 13:17
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Stuart D. Gathman, 13:09
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Dick St.Peters, 12:45
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Stuart D. Gathman, 12:04
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Craig Whitmore, 12:04
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 12:04
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Stuart D. Gathman, 11:55
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Daniel Taylor, 11:54
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 11:45
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Stuart D. Gathman, 11:43
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 11:27
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Daniel Taylor, 11:00
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Frank Ellermann, 10:56
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 10:48
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 10:43
- Re: possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:20
- possible changes to the SPF I-D during AUTH48, wayne, 10:06
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Frank Ellermann, 09:51
- Re: Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Stuart D. Gathman, 09:38
- Re: When was v=spf2.0 changed to just spf2.0, Frank Ellermann, 09:11
- remove 4.5 step 2 (was: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed.), Frank Ellermann, 08:49
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 08:42
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 08:41
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 08:34
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Frank Ellermann, 08:29
- RE: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:12
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 08:11
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 08:02
- Re: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, wayne, 07:59
- Re: When was v=spf2.0 changed to just spf2.0, wayne, 07:56
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 07:48
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 07:39
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 07:28
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Daniel Taylor, 07:22
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 07:18
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 07:13
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 07:03
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 06:51
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 06:44
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Florian Weimer, 06:25
- RE: When was v=spf2.0 changed to just spf2.0, Scott Kitterman, 05:19
- When was v=spf2.0 changed to just spf2.0, Craig Whitmore, 02:12
- Re: Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Koen Martens, 01:35
August 10, 2005
- RE: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Herb Martin, 23:25
- RE: Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Herb Martin, 23:20
- Re: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, wayne, 20:07
- Re: Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, wayne, 20:04
- Re: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Leonard Mills, 19:43
- RE: BIND TCP Failover - was Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Scott Kitterman, 19:39
- Re: Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Leonard Mills, 19:32
- Website/Wizard update for BIND Long TXT records, Scott Kitterman, 19:06
- RE: Website Update Request...., Scott Kitterman, 11:22
- Re: Website Update Request...., Stuart D. Gathman, 11:16
- Proxy spf records, johnp, 10:55
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:36
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:17
- Re: Proxy spf records, johnp, 09:29
- Re: Declaring openspf.org & co. official assets of the project, Julian Mehnle, 09:28
- Re: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), Terry Fielder, 08:37
- Re: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), johnp, 08:26
- RE: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), Scott Kitterman, 08:21
- Re: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), Mark Berry, 08:16
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 07:21
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 07:11
- Re: Declaring openspf.org & co. official assets of the project, Frank Ellermann, 06:40
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Frank Ellermann, 06:22
- Re: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), johnp, 05:47
- Re: Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), Terry Fielder, 05:38
- Website Update Request...., Scott Kitterman, 05:33
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 05:32
- Proxy spf records (was Validator Testing Request), johnp, 05:30
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Daniel Taylor, 05:26
- RE: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Scott Kitterman, 05:09
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 04:59
- Re: Validator Testing Request, johnp, 04:05
- Re: Declaring openspf.org & co. official assets of the project, Julian Mehnle, 03:41
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 01:11
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., wayne, 01:06
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 01:00
- Declaring openspf.org & co. official assets of the project, Julian Mehnle, 00:11
- (unknown), Julian Mehnle, 00:08
August 09, 2005
- Re: Transfer of the 'OpenSPF.org' domain name, Julian Mehnle, 23:53
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Arjen de Korte, 23:22
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., johnp, 23:14
- Re: Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., spf-team, 23:10
- Updating SPF type99 and TXT RR's: Simultaneity is not guaranteed., Mark Shewmaker, 22:59
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Frank Ellermann, 20:27
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 18:47
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:45
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Daniel Taylor, 12:32
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 12:18
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Richard Parker, 11:44
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:42
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 09:34
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:32
- RE: Transfer of the 'OpenSPF.org' domain name, Seth Goodman, 08:31
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 08:27
- Re: Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 08:10
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Daniel Taylor, 07:39
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:07
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 05:49
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 05:42
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Richard Parker, 03:53
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 03:18
- RE: Is the spf-devel list dead?, Stefan Engelbert, 02:05
- Re: Is the spf-devel list dead?, Frank Ellermann, 01:10
- Re: Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Craig Whitmore, 01:06
- Is the spf-devel list dead?, Brian Azzopardi, 00:45
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Frank Ellermann, 00:40
- Re: Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, johnp, 00:04
August 08, 2005
- Re: Transfer of the 'OpenSPF.org' domain name, Commerco WebMaster, 23:54
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Frank Ellermann, 23:34
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Richard Parker, 23:27
- Re: Transfer of the 'OpenSPF.org' domain name, Greg Connor, 22:56
- Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 22:17
- 'OpenSPF.org' Domain Name Transfer successfully completed, James Couzens, 22:00
- All openspf related domains are now available for the project., wayne, 21:59
- Transfer of the 'OpenSPF.org' domain name, James Couzens, 21:58
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Kaas Baichtal, 21:27
- Re: Validator Testing Request, Richard Parker, 21:23
- RE: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Seth Goodman, 21:08
- RE: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Seth Goodman, 17:51
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, johnp, 14:31
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 08:45
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 08:24
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:59
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Herb Martin, 07:40
- RE: Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 06:39
- Re: Validator Testing Request, wayne, 06:27
- Validator Testing Request, Scott Kitterman, 06:10
- Re: Re: Out of paper, Hector Santos, 03:06
August 07, 2005
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, johnp, 23:55
- RE: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, Scott Kitterman, 15:10
- Proof of email ownership, John A. Martin, 12:18
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, johnp, 09:05
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Frank Ellermann, 07:55
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Craig Whitmore, 01:48
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Graham Murray, 01:42
August 06, 2005
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, Scott Kitterman, 23:09
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, wayne, 22:40
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, Scott Kitterman, 22:20
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, wayne, 20:14
- RE: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, Scott Kitterman, 20:03
- RE: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Herb Martin, 19:38
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, wayne, 19:35
- Re: Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, wayne, 19:21
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Kaas Baichtal, 15:59
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, wayne, 15:31
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, wayne, 14:21
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Kaas Baichtal, 13:28
- how long to wait for openspf.org?, wayne, 12:59
- RE: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 12:32
- Re: Re: [spf-council] how long to wait for openspf.org?, Commerco WebMaster, 12:11
- Re: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, wayne, 11:46
- RE: Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, Scott Kitterman, 11:40
- Survey: When does SPF cause legitimate email to be rejected?, wayne, 11:28
- Re: Out of paper, Frank Ellermann, 09:19
- Re: Out of paper (was: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?), Ralf Doeblitz, 08:13
- Out of paper (was: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?), Frank Ellermann, 05:01
- Re: SPF test suite, Frank Ellermann, 04:20
- Re: [spf-council] how long to wait for openspf.org?, Frank Ellermann, 03:21
- Re: how long to wait for openspf.org?, Julian Mehnle, 03:01
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, william(at)elan.net, 00:28
August 05, 2005
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 23:36
- Re: Re: [spf-council] how long to wait for openspf.org?, william(at)elan.net, 22:53
- Re: how long to wait for openspf.org?, wayne, 21:57
- RE: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Stuart D. Gathman, 20:10
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Hector Santos, 20:00
- RE: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Seth Goodman, 16:01
- RE: Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:55
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:49
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:43
- RE: Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Scott Kitterman, 10:41
- Re: Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:34
- Re: SPF test suite, Stuart D. Gathman, 10:28
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 09:56
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, wayne, 09:49
- Re: Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, Commerco WebMaster, 09:40
- FYI: SPF Record in BIND 9.4.0, Jeroen Massar, 08:54
- Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters, Scott Kitterman, 07:23
- SPF Web Statistics, Scott Kitterman, 06:59
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 06:08
- Re: SPF test suite, Frank Ellermann, 05:57
- Re: SPF test suite, Frank Ellermann, 05:38
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 05:38
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, Lennon - Orcon, 05:31
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 05:31
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 05:26
- RE: Re: SPF test suite, Scott Kitterman, 05:16
- Re: SPF test suite, Frank Ellermann, 04:55
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, Lennon - Orcon, 04:19
- Re: Re: SPF test suite, Marc Chametzky, 04:14
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Frank Ellermann, 02:16
- Earthlink Says Sender ID Not Ready for Prime Time, wayne, 02:05
- Re: SPF test suite, Frank Ellermann, 01:57
- SPF test suite, Lennon - Orcon, 00:59
August 04, 2005
- HELO checking in Mail::SPF::Query fails, Arjen de Korte, 23:02
- RE: New SPF RR type and broken DNS servers, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:28
- RE: New SPF RR type and broken DNS servers, Scott Kitterman, 12:54
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:36
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 07:20
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Florian Weimer, 06:53
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, wayne, 03:47
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Florian Weimer, 03:00
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, wayne, 00:54
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Florian Weimer, 00:25
August 03, 2005
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, wayne, 22:58
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Florian Weimer, 22:38
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Mark Shewmaker, 16:36
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 14:52
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Bill Taroli, 14:37
- New SPF RR type and broken DNS servers, Stuart D. Gathman, 13:35
- Resposta Automática, sucesso, 12:32
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 12:31
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Jason Gurtz, 10:53
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Florian Weimer, 07:35
- RE: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Mark, 05:58
- Re: Large link. Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Daniel Taylor, 05:49
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Dick St.Peters, 05:38
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Terry Fielder, 04:21
August 02, 2005
- Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Frank Ellermann, 23:22
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 23:21
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, development, 22:43
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, development, 22:15
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 22:09
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, development, 22:03
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 22:00
- RE: Broken SPF Records Update, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:37
- Re: John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, Stuart D. Gathman, 21:27
- John Levine says: SPF Loses Mindshare?, wayne, 21:02
- RE: Broken SPF Records Update, Scott Kitterman, 20:20
- RE: Large link. Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Scott Kitterman, 20:17
- Re: Broken SPF Records Update, wayne, 18:52
- Re: Broken SPF Records Update, Stuart D. Gathman, 18:23
- Re: Broken SPF Records Update, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 16:26
- Large link. Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Daniel Taylor, 14:58
- SPF Mail Summary Report, spf-discuss, 14:49
- Re: Broken SPF Records Update, Stuart D. Gathman, 14:09
- Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Alex van den Bogaerdt, 13:49
- Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Daniel Taylor, 13:04
- RE: ip4: ABNF Question..., Scott Kitterman, 12:55
- Re: ip4: ABNF Question..., Dick St.Peters, 12:50
- RE: Broken SPF Records Update, Scott Kitterman, 10:14
- ip4: ABNF Question..., Scott Kitterman, 09:50
- RE: Broken SPF Records Update, Scott Kitterman, 05:58
- Re: Thanks for all the feedback on the SPF validator, johnp, 04:55
August 01, 2005
- new subscriber, kimbersunshine, 12:37
- Re: Additioanl SPF Support Volunteers Needed, Scott Kitterman, 09:36
- Re: Additioanl SPF Support Volunteers Needed, wayne, 09:25
- Re: What to do about the SPF domain name, Michael Hammer, 08:01
- New website, johnp, 00:09