ietf.dkim (thread)

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