|
|
February 28, 2006
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Mark Delany
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla
- Amplification attack solution., Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, stephen . farrell
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton
- Re: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Jim Fenton
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targetsfor spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Scott Kitterman
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla
- Re: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Douglas Otis
- Re: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Jim Fenton
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Douglas Otis
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton
February 27, 2006
- RE: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eric Rescorla
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net
- RE: Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker
- Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse, william(at)elan.net
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eliot Lear
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Eliot Lear
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Tony Hansen
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Jim Fenton
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Scott Kitterman
- Re: Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed
February 26, 2006
- Re: Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Tony Hansen
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed
- Re: Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Ned Freed
February 25, 2006
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Wietse Venema
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Steve Atkins
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, John Levine
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Frank Ellermann
- Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Dave Crocker
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker
- Re: signature h= and z= tags, Frank Ellermann
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Steve Atkins
- Re: signature h= and z= tags, Hector Santos
February 24, 2006
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John R Levine
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Hector Santos
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Dave Crocker
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John R Levine
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, John Levine
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas
February 23, 2006
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Scott Kitterman
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Arvel Hathcock
- signature h= and z= tags, Hector Santos
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Douglas Otis
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Michael Thomas
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Mark Delany
- Re: No new PKIs! (was: Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Douglas Otis
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Mark Delany
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Mark Delany
- No new PKIs! (was: Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?), Stephen Farrell
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed
February 22, 2006
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Ned Freed
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Jon Callas
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Tony Hansen
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos
- Re: authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen
- Re: authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Hector Santos
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, william(at)elan.net
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Jon Callas
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Mark Delany
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hector Santos
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Hector Santos
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Jon Callas
- Re: authentification-results draft?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Frank Ellermann
- Re: OT: DK credits, Jon Callas
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Jon Callas
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Douglas Otis
- Re: Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Tony Hansen
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now, Dave Crocker
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas
- Re: Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Michael Thomas
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eric Rescorla
- Re: authentification-results draft?, Michael Thomas
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas
- Re: authentification-results draft?, J.D. Falk
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- authentification-results draft?, Tony Hansen
- International Conference on Network Security 2006, Robert Holliday
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Hector Santos
- Open Issues at this time, Eliot Lear
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Eliot Lear
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Mark Delany
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Douglas Otis
February 21, 2006
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Michael Thomas
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen
- Re: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Tony Hansen
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Ned Freed
- Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Douglas Otis
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Stephen Farrell
- Re: Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Arvel Hathcock
- RE: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Dave Crocker
- RE: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Arvel Hathcock
- Draft DKIM agenda for Dallas., Stephen Farrell
- Please resend: any mail send to me after 8am Monday., Dave Crocker
- Re: issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Michael Thomas
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas
- issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations, Tony Hansen
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Andrew Newton
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Michael Thomas
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Bill.Oxley
- Re: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen
- OT: DK credits, Frank Ellermann
- New Issue: extensions to the RR, Eliot Lear
- Re: agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Eliot Lear
- agenda item on upgrading hash algorithms?, Tony Hansen
- Re: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Mark Delany
- Re: another try at my question on options in TXT records, Dave Crocker
- another try at my question on options in TXT records, Tony Hansen
- Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Andrew Newton
February 20, 2006
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Stephen Farrell
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Daniel Dreymann
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Douglas Otis
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Jim Fenton
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Arvel Hathcock
- RE: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXTrecord, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Supporting alternate algorithms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Douglas Otis
- Re: Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Stephen Farrell
- small question in draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt on TXT record, Tony Hansen
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis
- RE: OT: DK credits, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- Re: Quite a lot of DKIM at Dallas IETF, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Jim Fenton
February 17, 2006
- New DKIM FAQ, Dave Crocker
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, william(at)elan.net
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, SM
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen
- Re: SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Douglas Otis
- SSP - should r= be localpart only?, Mark Delany
- SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany
February 16, 2006
- RE: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Bill.Oxley
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Steve Atkins
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eliot Lear
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Mark Delany
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Supporting alternate algorithms, Stephen Farrell
- Re: (-base document) clarifications on use of l= tag, Frank Ellermann
February 15, 2006
- Handling Invalid Signatures, Hector Santos
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos
- (-base document) clarifications on use of l= tag, Eric Allman
- Supporting alternate algorithms, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Eric Allman
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Eric Allman
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Peter Koch
- Re: draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 submitted, Mark Delany
- New Issue: Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks, Mark Delany
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, John Levine
- RE: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Markley, Mike
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Hector Santos
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Michael Thomas
- RE: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Markley, Mike
- Re: Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: TLD key publication and signing, Frank Ellermann
February 11, 2006
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Douglas Otis
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Douglas Otis
- Re: Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Michael Thomas
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Hector Santos
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus& question for base spec), Hector Santos
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Dave Crocker
- Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=, Michael Thomas
- New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec), Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Douglas Otis
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Frank Ellermann
- Re: fyi- current open issues, Eliot Lear
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Douglas Otis
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Hector Santos
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Tony Hansen
- Re: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Dave Crocker
- RE: testing Message Corpus & question for base spec, Bill.Oxley
February 03, 2006
- dkim web page update, Dave Crocker
- I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt, Internet-Drafts
- Re: Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis
- draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 submitted, Eric Allman
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann
- RE: Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Bill.Oxley
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos
- Re: Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Douglas Otis
February 02, 2006
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: canonicalization, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Attempted summary, SSP again, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos
- Re: Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, Frank Ellermann
- Re: now up on roundup tracker, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Frank Ellermann
- Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos
- Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks, Jim Fenton
February 01, 2006
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Mark Delany
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Michael Thomas
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Stephen Farrell
- RE: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Bill.Oxley
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Hector Santos
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker
- touting the DKIM Supporters list, Dave Crocker
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Jeff Macdonald
- New Issue: Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust, Douglas Otis
- Re: now up on roundup tracker, Dave Crocker
- Re: Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Dave Crocker
- Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Hector Santos
- now up on roundup tracker, Eliot Lear
- Re: Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, Stephen Farrell
- Measurement Results on Deployment Ratio of Domain Authentications, 山本和彦
- Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item: InconsistentSignature vs Policy Attacks, J.D. Falk
- Re: the Internet is inherently insecure, Frank Ellermann
|
|
