|
|
March 31, 2006
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Douglas Otis
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Michael Thomas
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Mark Delany
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Michael Thomas
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, ned+dkim
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Eric Rescorla
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Tony Hansen
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Tony Hansen
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Douglas Otis
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Douglas Otis
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Michael Thomas
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Barry Leiba
- RE: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Bill.Oxley
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Dave Crocker
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Michael Thomas
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Michael Thomas
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Mark Delany
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Jim Fenton
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Jim Fenton
March 30, 2006
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Douglas Otis
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Dave Crocker
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Mark Delany
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Dave Crocker
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures, Paul Hoffman
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Mark Delany
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Douglas Otis
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Jim Fenton
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Paul Hoffman
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Stephen Farrell
- Re: mailing lists and -base, John Levine
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hector Santos
March 28, 2006
- Re: WG last call on threats draft, Stephen Farrell
- Compromize?, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, DKIM Chair
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, DKIM Chair
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Hector Santos
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, Douglas Otis
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], william(at)elan.net
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Michael Thomas
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Jim Fenton
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Paul Hoffman
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Jim Fenton
- Issues summary from IETF65 meeting, DKIM Chair
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Jim Fenton
- RE: mailing lists and -base, Bill.Oxley
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Jim Fenton
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, Eliot Lear
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Stephen Farrell
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Stephen Farrell
- Re: mailing lists and -base, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, Hector Santos
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hector Santos
- mailing lists and -base, Michael Thomas
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], william(at)elan.net
- Re: SSP and o= values, Graham Murray
- Re: Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, DKIM Chair
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Tony Hansen
- Draft DKIM minutes from IETF65, DKIM Chair
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hector Santos
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Jim Fenton
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: Recommend not adding DNS RR(s) into DKIM base doc, Mark Delany
- Re: Recommend not adding DNS RR(s) into DKIM base doc, Eliot Lear
- RE: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Jim Fenton
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Tony Hansen
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: SSP and o= values, Douglas Otis
- Re: SSP and o= values, Douglas Otis
- SSP RR vs TXT [was Re: SSP and o= values], Hector Santos
- RE: SSP and o= values, Bill.Oxley
- Re: SSP and o= values, Jim Fenton
- Re: SSP and o= values, Jim Fenton
- Re: SSP and o= values, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Recommend not adding DNS RR(s) into DKIM base doc, Jim Fenton
- Re: SSP and o= values, Mike Wolf
- Re: SSP and o= values, Douglas Otis
March 27, 2006
- Re: SSP and o= values, Tony Hansen
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Dave Crocker
- Recommend not adding DNS RR(s) into DKIM base doc, Mark Delany
- Re: SSP and o= values, Mark Delany
- Re: base: is anyone actually *using* n= in their dns records?, Mark Delany
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Draft Side Channel Language, Eric Rescorla
- Draft Side Channel Language, Eric Rescorla
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: Alternative to SSP, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- jabber interims..., Stephen Farrell
- RE: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Bill.Oxley
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- SSP and o= values, Tony Hansen
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
March 25, 2006
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Michael Thomas
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Dave Crocker
- New issue: optional exponent needed or not?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Paul Hoffman
- Going to a single hash algorithm, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Splitting the DKIM base doc, Dave Crocker
- Re: SSP - Sender Signing [Policy | Practice | Profile] or DSP - Domain Signature Profile, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: DKIM Working Group Summary, IETF 65, Barry Leiba
- Re: SSP - Sender Signing [Policy | Practice | Profile] or DSP - Domain Signature Profile, Jim Fenton
- Splitting the DKIM base doc, Barry Leiba
March 24, 2006
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Jim Fenton
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, william(at)elan.net
- Re: SSP - Sender Signing [Policy | Practice | Profile] or DSP - Domain Signature Profile, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- 1193 Proposal Benefits: [Re: 1193 considered harmful], Hector Santos
- SSP - Sender Signing [Policy | Practice | Profile] or DSP - Domain Signature Profile, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Jim Fenton
- Re: DKIM Working Group Summary, IETF 65, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Proposed addition to dkim-threats about hash collisions, Jim Fenton
March 23, 2006
- Re: binary DKIM key, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Proposed addition to dkim-threats about hash collisions, Paul Hoffman
- Re: binary DKIM key, Michael Thomas
- RE: binary DKIM key, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- DKIM Working Group Summary, IETF 65, DKIM Chair
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, william(at)elan.net
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Mark Delany
- Re: binary DKIM key, Mark Delany
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Mark Delany
- Authentication-Results discussion, Tony Hansen
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
March 22, 2006
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Eric Allman
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- RE: 1193 considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: DKIM TCO, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Tony Hansen
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Jim Fenton
- binary DKIM key, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Russ Housley
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Paul Hoffman
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Dave Crocker
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Paul Hoffman
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Mark Delany
- Re: 1193 considered harmful - Correction, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Hector Santos
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, william(at)elan.net
- Re: Jamming stuff in the selector record, John Levine
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Tony Hansen
March 21, 2006
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Network Security 2006, Robert Holliday
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Jim Fenton
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Douglas Otis
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Jim Fenton
- Re: 1193 considered harmful, Barry Leiba
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, SM
- Re: Signature identifier proposal, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Signature identifier proposal, Michael Thomas
- Re: Jamming stuff in the selector record, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Signature identifier proposal, Murray S. Kucherawy
- 1193 considered harmful, Michael Thomas
- Signer referenced DNS vector, Douglas Otis
- -base status slides (updated), Eric Allman
- RE: New Issue: review of threats-01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: New Issue: review of threats-01, Jim Fenton
- Re: Signature identifier proposal, Jim Fenton
- Re: Jamming stuff in the selector record, Jim Fenton
- Re: Jamming stuff in the selector record, Douglas Otis
March 20, 2006
- Jamming stuff in the selector record, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Posting rights restricted to registered email address, Dave Crocker
- Sha/1-256, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis
- Updated agenda ..., Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Ólafur Guðmundsson
- Signature identifier proposal, Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: New Issue: review of threats-01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Posting rights restricted to registered email address, Dave Crocker
- Slides for -base discussion this afternoon, Eric Allman
- [Fwd: EKR-3- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)], Dave Crocker
- [Fwd: EKR - Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)], Dave Crocker
- hearing both sides of the conversation, Dave Crocker
- [Fwd: EKR2 - Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)], Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: review of threats-01, Douglas Otis
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: review of threats-01, Jim Fenton
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Michael Thomas
- RE: New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons, Bill.Oxley
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Include new "known message replay" threat?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: review of threats-01, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: review of threats-01, Jim Fenton
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Tony Hansen
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Tony Hansen
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Tony Hansen
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Dave Crocker
March 19, 2006
- DKIM-related events on dkim.org home page, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis
- Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1), Eric Rescorla
- New Issue: review of threats-01, Eric Rescorla
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: Include new "known message replay" threat?, Jim Fenton
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Russ Housley
March 17, 2006
- Re: New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons, Hector Santos
- RE: New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons, Bill.Oxley
- New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons, Hector Santos
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Douglas Otis
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- If not "retailer", then...?, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Russ Housley
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Jeff Macdonald
- RE: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Bill.Oxley
- Re: New Issue: Clarify delegation to 3rd parties, Dave Crocker
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, SM
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Jim Fenton
March 16, 2006
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John Levine
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Hector Santos
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, william(at)elan.net
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., william(at)elan.net
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Hector Santos
- Re: Now supporting rsa-sha256, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Arvel Hathcock
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Arvel Hathcock
- Now supporting rsa-sha256, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Barry Leiba
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman
- RE: New Issue: 512 too short?, Bill.Oxley
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Arvel Hathcock
- Re: New Issue: Why is s= REQUIRED?, Paul Hoffman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: Why is s= REQUIRED?, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: selectors and key rollover, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Eric Rescorla
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Arvel Hathcock
- Issues status, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: selectors and key rollover, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John L
- Re: New Issue: selectors and key rollover, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: Why is s= REQUIRED?, Mark Delany
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John L
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Michael Thomas
- Re: New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- New Issue: z= field and EAI wg, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: Why is s= REQUIRED?, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: 512 too short?, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: selectors and key rollover, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: Clarify delegation to 3rd parties, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: base editorial, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: some process-problematic references in base, Stephen Farrell
- New Issues: bunch of nits for base, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Hector Santos
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Mark Delany
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Scott Kitterman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Scott Kitterman
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John R Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Paul Hoffman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Douglas Otis
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
March 15, 2006
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Paul Hoffman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John Levine
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Douglas Otis
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Paul Hoffman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, J.D. Falk
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, J.D. Falk
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Hector Santos
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Barry Leiba
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Douglas Otis
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Barry Leiba
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Douglas Otis
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Eliot Lear
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc., Paul Hoffman
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Steve Atkins
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- RE: Concerns about DKIM and mailing lists, Bill.Oxley
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, John R Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Barry Leiba
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Michael Thomas
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Barry Leiba
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Alan Thew
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Stephen Farrell
- Re: 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Alan Thew
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Hector Santos
- 5 outstanding issues with the threat review, Douglas Otis
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Mark Delany
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, John Levine
- Re: New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, John Levine
- Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, william(at)elan.net
- Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, Barry Leiba
March 14, 2006
- Re: New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, Michael Thomas
- Re: New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, Dave Crocker
- Re: Agenda updated again, Tony Hansen
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Arvel Hathcock
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Jon Callas
- Re: New Issue: bunch of nits on threats-01 document, Douglas Otis
- Re: Agenda updated again, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: bunch of nits on threats-01 document, Stephen Farrell
- New issue: DKIM and mailiing lists, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Jim Fenton
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Barry Leiba
- Re: New Issue: bunch of nits on threats-01 document, Jim Fenton
March 11, 2006
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Douglas Otis
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, william(at)elan.net
- Re: New Issue: Misleading figure in 1.1, Frank Ellermann
- #1170 (was: WG last call on threats draft), Frank Ellermann
- Re: Concentrate on the threats doc, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Agenda updated again, Mark Delany
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Hector Santos
- Concentrate on the threats doc, Barry Leiba
- Re: Core algorithm support/use, draft text v2, Barry Leiba
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Barry Leiba
- Re: Agenda updated again, Dave Crocker
- Re: Agenda updated again, Barry Leiba
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Douglas Otis
March 10, 2006
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- RE: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Nick Nicholas
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, J.D. Falk
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Hector Santos
- RE: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Daniel Dreymann
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Hector Santos
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Hector Santos
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Douglas Otis
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Douglas Otis
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- RE: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Bill.Oxley
- Re: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Mark Delany
- RE: ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Bill.Oxley
- Re: New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Jim Fenton
- Re: Auth-Results open discussion forum, Dave Crocker
- Re: Auth-Results open discussion forum, Scott Kitterman
- ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator, Dave Crocker
March 09, 2006
- Auth-Results open discussion forum, Dave Crocker
- Draft agenda for Dallas..., Stephen Farrell
- Re: Differences between threat-00 and threat-01, Stephen Farrell
- Differences between threat-00 and threat-01, Douglas Otis
- Re: issues disposition, Dave Crocker
- Re: New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: Include new "known message replay" threat?, Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Mark Delany
- New Issue: threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation, Stephen Farrell
- New Issue: bunch of nits on threats-01 document, Stephen Farrell
- WG last call on threats draft, Stephen Farrell
- issues disposition, Stephen Farrell
- Re: Agenda updated again, Dave Crocker
- Re: Agenda updated again, Michael Thomas
- Re: Agenda updated again, Tony Hansen
|
|
