Archive of ietf-822, by date

• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/04/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/04/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Keith Moore, 03/04/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 03/04/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Frank Ellermann, 03/04/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Keith Moore, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Keith Moore, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Keith Moore, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Dave Crocker, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/03/2005
• (no subject), Z. Rahman, 03/03/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Dave Crocker, 03/02/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/02/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Keith Moore, 03/02/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 03/02/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 03/02/2005
• Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, Dave Crocker, 03/02/2005
• Update to "simplified" RFC 2822 grammar, Bruce Lilly, 03/02/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Charles Lindsey, 03/02/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 03/01/2005
• Re: Site policy vs. HELO, Hector Santos, 03/01/2005
• Re: Site policy vs. HELO, Hector Santos, 03/01/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 03/01/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 03/01/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Hector Santos, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: Site policy vs. HELO, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Site policy vs. HELO, Vince Sabio, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/28/2005
• Re: [0.0.0.0], Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Charles Lindsey, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Tony Finch, 02/28/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: [0.0.0.0], Russ Allbery, 02/27/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Laird Breyer, 02/27/2005
• Re: [0.0.0.0] (was: MTS transparency and anonymity), Claus Assmann, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/27/2005
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Laird Breyer, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02/27/2005
• anonymous@[] test, anonymous, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/27/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore, 02/26/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Frank Ellermann, 02/26/2005
• Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann, 02/26/2005
• Re: Use of Sender in authentication considered unacceptable (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt), Keith Moore, 02/26/2005
• Re: Use of Sender in authentication considered unacceptable (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt), SM, 02/26/2005
• Use of Sender in authentication considered unacceptable (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt), Keith Moore, 02/25/2005
• MTS transparency and anonymity (was Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt), Keith Moore, 02/25/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, SM, 02/25/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey, 02/25/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey, 02/25/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Frank Ellermann, 02/25/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Laird Breyer, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, ned+ietf-822, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, ned+ietf-822, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Russ Allbery, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey, 02/24/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Russ Allbery, 02/23/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/23/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Bruce Lilly, 02/23/2005
• Re: draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, Charles Lindsey, 02/23/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/22/2005
• draft-lilly-from-optional-01.txt, SM, 02/22/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Keith Moore, 02/22/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Graham Klyne, 02/22/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Keith Moore, 02/21/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-03.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/21/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore, 02/21/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/18/2005
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Martin Duerst, 02/18/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/18/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/18/2005
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Martin Duerst, 02/17/2005
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Martin Duerst, 02/17/2005
• Updating the mailto URI scheme for better I18N, Martin Duerst, 02/14/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey, 02/02/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey, 02/02/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Hector Santos, 02/01/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly, 02/01/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly, 02/01/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey, 01/31/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey, 01/31/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly, 01/29/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Hector Santos, 01/29/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Frank Ellermann, 01/28/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly, 01/28/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey, 01/28/2005
• Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly, 01/27/2005
• Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Charles Lindsey, 01/26/2005
• Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01/25/2005
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Charles Lindsey, 01/25/2005
• Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Charles Lindsey, 01/25/2005
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Bruce Lilly, 01/21/2005
• Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Frank Ellermann, 01/19/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Philip Hazel, 01/19/2005
• Re: Resent- fields, Philip Hazel, 01/19/2005
• Re: terminology, Laird Breyer, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Laird Breyer, 01/18/2005
• Re: terminology, Keith Moore, 01/18/2005
• terminology, Bruce Lilly, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Philip Hazel, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Paul Overell, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Philip Hazel, 01/18/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, william(at)elan.net, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Laird Breyer, 01/17/2005
• Re: non-standard prefixing considered harmful, unnecessary fiddling with message content considered harmful, Bruce Lilly, 01/17/2005
• Re: Resent- fields, Bruce Lilly, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, william(at)elan.net, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Laird Breyer, 01/17/2005
• Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers, Charles Lindsey, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Keith Moore, 01/17/2005
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Charles Lindsey, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, william(at)elan.net, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Keith Moore, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Tony Finch, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Richard Clayton, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Paul Overell, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Philip Hazel, 01/17/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Keith Moore, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Tony Finch, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, william(at)elan.net, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Keith Moore, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Philip Hazel, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers, Frank Ellermann, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Keith Moore, 01/16/2005
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Bruce Lilly, 01/16/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Frank Ellermann, 01/16/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Bruce Lilly, 01/15/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Keith Moore, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Bruce Lilly, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Bruce Lilly, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Bruce Lilly, 01/14/2005
• Re: Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Laurence Lundblade, 01/14/2005
• Experiment #2 with multiple Reference headers (was References with multipl, Charles Lindsey, 01/14/2005
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Charles Lindsey, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Tony Finch, 01/14/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Charles Lindsey, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Charles Lindsey, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Keith Moore, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Tony Finch, 01/14/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Tony Finch, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Keith Moore, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01/14/2005
• Re: Making group syntax do-not-generate, Keith Moore, 01/14/2005
• Making group syntax do-not-generate, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 01/14/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Bart Schaefer, 01/13/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Laird Breyer, 01/13/2005
• General considerations for new message field specifications, Bruce Lilly, 01/13/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Richard Clayton, 01/13/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers, Frank Ellermann, 01/13/2005
• Re: Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Keith Moore, 01/13/2005
• Experiment with multiple Reference headers (was References with multiple precursore [sic]), Charles Lindsey, 01/13/2005
• Re: References with multiple precursors (was Attempts at establishing harmful conventions), Charles Lindsey, 01/13/2005
• Re: References with multiple precursore [sic] (was Attempts at establishing harmful conventions), Bruce Lilly, 01/12/2005
• References with multiple precursore (was Attempts at establishing harmful conventions), Charles Lindsey, 01/11/2005
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 01/10/2005
• vMessage 1.1 Specification needed, Hg Doreswamy-A21177, 01/06/2005
• SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt, wayne, 01/03/2005
• Re: Origins of message modification, Keith Moore, 12/30/2004
• Re: Origins of message modification, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12/30/2004
• Re: Origins of message modification, Tony Finch, 12/30/2004
• Origins of message modification, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12/30/2004
• Re: MHTML: cid href to message/rfc822 in multipart/related, Jacob Palme, 12/27/2004
• Re: MHTML: cid href to message/rfc822 in multipart/related, Hari Krishna Pammi pammi, 12/23/2004
• Re: MHTML: cid href to message/rfc822 in multipart/related, Jacob Palme, 12/23/2004
• MHTML: cid href to message/rfc822 in multipart/related, Hari Krishna Pammi pammi, 12/22/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Laird Breyer, 12/19/2004
• E-mail and group communication, Jacob Palme, 12/18/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful?), Jacob Palme, 12/18/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Russ Allbery, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Keith Moore, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Laird Breyer, 12/17/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Jacob Palme, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Keith Moore, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Jacob Palme, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Laird Breyer, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Cyrus Daboo, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Keith Moore, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Charles Lindsey, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Hector Santos, 12/17/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Laird Breyer, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Laird Breyer, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes (considered harmful), Keith Moore, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Russ Allbery, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Simon Josefsson, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Charles Lindsey, 12/16/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Hector Santos, 12/15/2004
• Re: Message Attributes, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 12/15/2004
• Message Attributes, Hector Santos, 12/15/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Russ Allbery, 12/14/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Simon Josefsson, 12/14/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Keld Jørn Simonsen, 12/14/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Russ Allbery, 12/14/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Charles Lindsey, 12/14/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Russ Allbery, 12/13/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Jacob Palme, 12/13/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Jacob Palme, 12/13/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Charles Lindsey, 12/13/2004
• Re: Charset name length(s), Randy Presuhn, 12/13/2004
• Re: Charset name length(s), Bruce Lilly, 12/12/2004
• Re: Charset name length(s), Randy Presuhn, 12/12/2004
• Charset name length(s), Bruce Lilly, 12/12/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Bruce Lilly, 12/10/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Keith Moore, 12/10/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Keld Jørn Simonsen, 12/09/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Russ Allbery, 12/09/2004
• Re: [Old-standards] Re: standards spring cleaning, Eliot Lear, 12/09/2004
• Re: Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Bruce Lilly, 12/09/2004
• Re: standards spring cleaning, Dave Crocker, 12/09/2004
• Best MUA handling of duplicate messages from mailing lists, Jacob Palme, 12/09/2004
• Re: standards spring cleaning, Bruce Lilly, 12/07/2004
• Re: standards spring cleaning, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12/07/2004
• Re: standards spring cleaning, ned+ietf-822, 12/06/2004
• Re: Fwd: standards spring cleaning, Bruce Lilly, 12/06/2004
• Fwd: standards spring cleaning, Paul Hoffman / IMC, 12/06/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 12/02/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 12/02/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Kai Henningsen, 12/02/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Kai Henningsen, 12/02/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Laird Breyer, 12/01/2004
• RE: Company-Confidential indication, ned+ietf-822, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• RE: Company-Confidential indication, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Laird Breyer, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful convention with multilingual =?utf-8?q?=D7=A2=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=AA_/English?= subjects, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Laird Breyer, 12/01/2004
• UA author advice / message operations vs. message access protocols, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• RE: Company-Confidential indication, ned+ietf-822, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Laird Breyer, 12/01/2004
• RE: Company-Confidential indication, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg), 12/01/2004
• Re: Company-Confidential indication, ned+ietf-822, 12/01/2004
• =?utf-8?q?Re:_Attempts_at_establishing_harmful_convention_with_m?==?utf-8?q?ultilingual_=D7=A2=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=AA_/English_su?==?utf-8?q?bjects?=, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12/01/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12/01/2004
• Re: Company-Confidential indication, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Steve Dorner, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful convention with multilingual =?utf-8?q?=D7=A2=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=AA_/English?= subjects, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 12/01/2004
• =?utf-8?q?Re:_Attempts_at_establishing_harmful_convention_with_m?==?utf-8?q?ultilingual_=D7=A2=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=AA_/English_su?==?utf-8?q?bjects?=, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Nathaniel Borenstein, 12/01/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, SM, 11/30/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Laird Breyer, 11/30/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Laird Breyer, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Laird Breyer, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/30/2004
• MoreOn: Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/30/2004
• Re: Company-Confidential indication, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Company-Confidential indication, Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 11/30/2004
• MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/30/2004
• Subject field hacks and machine processing of "only human-readable information", Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 11/30/2004
• Re: MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 11/30/2004
• MoreOn: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Steve Dorner, 11/30/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Steve Dorner, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 11/30/2004
• Re: Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Keith Moore, 11/30/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/30/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 11/29/2004
• Attempts at establishing harmful conventions, Bruce Lilly, 11/29/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 11/29/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Nick Ing-Simmons, 11/24/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/22/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/22/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 11/20/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Simon Josefsson, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Kai Henningsen, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Simon Josefsson, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Keith Moore, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 11/19/2004
• Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/19/2004
• New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt, Peter Koch, 11/18/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/17/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 11/17/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/13/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/13/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 11/10/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/10/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/10/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Russ Allbery, 11/08/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/08/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/08/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/08/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Charles Lindsey, 11/08/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Charles Lindsey, 11/08/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nick Shelness, 11/08/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 11/07/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/07/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/07/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/07/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/07/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/06/2004
• Re: Archives, Keith Moore, 11/06/2004
• Re: Archives, Bruce Lilly, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/06/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Valdis . Kletnieks, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Valdis . Kletnieks, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, ned+ietf-822, 11/05/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/05/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Bruce Lilly, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/05/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Martin Trautmann, 11/05/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Martin Trautmann, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Tony Finch, 11/05/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Keith Moore, 11/04/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Tony Hansen, 11/04/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Nathaniel Borenstein, 11/04/2004
• Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Tony Hansen, 11/04/2004
• [no subject], owner-test-l, 11/04/2004
• 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822, Valdis . Kletnieks, 11/04/2004
• Re: Archives, Keith Moore, 11/04/2004
• Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member messages to lists], Bruce Lilly, 11/04/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/04/2004
• Re: Archives, Bruce Lilly, 11/03/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/03/2004
• Re: Archives, Charles Lindsey, 11/03/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/03/2004
• Re: Archives, Keith Moore, 11/02/2004
• Re: Archives, Bruce Lilly, 11/02/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Charles Lindsey, 11/02/2004
• Re: Archives, Keith Moore, 11/02/2004
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Keith Moore, 11/02/2004
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Peter Koch, 11/02/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 11/01/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Keith Moore, 11/01/2004
• Archives, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-archived-at-02.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Keith Moore, 11/01/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: MUA Mail Options for a Mailing List [was Re: non-member messages to lists], Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: Angle brackets surrounding Content-ID, Charles Lindsey, 11/01/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Use of Reply-To, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 11/01/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 11/01/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Graham Klyne, 11/01/2004
• provisional registration: Archived-At for email, Martin Duerst, 10/31/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/31/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore, 10/31/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/31/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 10/31/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 10/31/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 10/31/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 10/30/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/30/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 10/30/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 10/30/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 10/30/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Hector Santos, 10/29/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Hector Santos, 10/29/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Hector Santos, 10/29/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: General considerations for new message field specifications, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 10/29/2004
• General considerations for new message field specifications, Bruce Lilly, 10/29/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/29/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Martin Duerst, 10/29/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Martin Duerst, 10/29/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 10/28/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Laird Breyer, 10/28/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bruce Lilly, 10/28/2004
• Re: the gap regarding Archived-At, Bruce Lilly, 10/28/2004
• the gap regarding Archived-At, Keith Moore, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore, 10/28/2004
• Re: Understanding response protocols, Nathaniel Borenstein, 10/28/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Claus Assmann, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Bill McQuillan, 10/28/2004
• Re: a header authentication scheme, Bruce Lilly, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Keith Moore, 10/28/2004
• Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-archived-at-02.txt, Graham Klyne, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Graham Klyne, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Graham Klyne, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10/28/2004
• Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 10/28/2004

The web site for this mailing list is sponsored by the Internet Mail Consortium. If you have any suggestions for additions or corrections to this Web page, please send them to phoffman@imc.org.