Archive of ietf-mxcomp, by date

Go to thread index
Go to main page for ietf-mxcomp

Page 3 of 12
[Prev Page] [Next Page] [First Page] [Last Page]

Re: FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, william(at)elan.net, 09/15/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09/15/2004
RE: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents aflag day., terry, 09/15/2004
Re: HELO and Unified, william(at)elan.net, 09/15/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 09/15/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 09/15/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Mark, 09/15/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., wayne, 09/15/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., Graham Murray, 09/15/2004
DEPLOY: Permitting '-all' to be used immediately represents a flag day., David Woodhouse, 09/15/2004
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY- IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 09/15/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 09/15/2004
Re: HELO and Unified, Matthew Elvey, 09/15/2004
Re: [Fwd: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. )], AccuSpam, 09/15/2004
PRA is dead. Media, nanae/nanabl.(was Re: Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 09/14/2004
FW: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination, Harry Katz, 09/14/2004
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/14/2004
Re: HELO and Unified, Daniel Quinlan, 09/14/2004
HELO and Unified, Meng Weng Wong, 09/14/2004
RHSBLs (was Re: HELO, IPR, A&R ..., Matthew Elvey, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Meng Weng Wong, 09/14/2004
RE: Interpreting "v=spf1", terry, 09/14/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Margaret Olson, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 09/14/2004
RE: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/14/2004
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
Misinformation - Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Matthew Elvey, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/14/2004
Re: HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), John Leslie, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", Mark Lentczner, 09/14/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Sam Varshavchik, 09/14/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, David Woodhouse, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09/14/2004
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 09/14/2004
HELO, IPR, A&R means new draft?; scope; Microsoft - (Re: DEPLOY - IP, HELO & touch count. ), Matthew Elvey, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/14/2004
Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 09/14/2004
Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/14/2004
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1", wayne, 09/14/2004
Re: by the numbers, wayne, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/14/2004
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Yakov Shafranovich, 09/14/2004
Re: by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 09/14/2004
Re: the TCP argument again, consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/14/2004
by the numbers, Andrew Newton, 09/14/2004
Re: Interpreting "v=spf1" (was Work plan for Sender ID), Mark Lentczner, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/14/2004
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/14/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/14/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 09/14/2004
RE: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 09/14/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 09/14/2004
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Patrik Fältström, 09/14/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Claus Färber, 09/14/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Patrik Fältström, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Tony Finch, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/14/2004
Re: [Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, David Woodhouse, 09/14/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Danny Angus, 09/14/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, william(at)elan.net, 09/14/2004
RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jim Lyon, 09/13/2004
Re: All members of "we" please raise your hands., Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/13/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/13/2004
RE: Work plan for Sender ID, Michael R. Brumm, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, wayne, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 09/13/2004
Re: Some stats on TXT usage in domain names (updated), wayne, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Ted Hardie, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 09/13/2004
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Murray S. Kucherawy, 09/13/2004
[Accountability!] RE: SPF abused by spammers, Gordon Fecyk, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Douglas Otis, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/13/2004
Re: Work plan for Sender ID, Daniel Quinlan, 09/13/2004
Work plan for Sender ID, Andrew Newton, 09/13/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/13/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/13/2004
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
RE: What the lawyers and suits think, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
RE: What the lawyers and suits think, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/13/2004
TECH OMISSION + DEPLOY: PRA algorithm failure scenarios with mail lists that add only Sender header must be mentioned, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 09/13/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/13/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/13/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders thatare not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 09/13/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Paul Iadonisi, 09/13/2004
Re: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 09/13/2004
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: AOL's stance on SenderID and IPR issues, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/13/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Jim Lyon, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/13/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 09/13/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/13/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I belie ve), Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/13/2004
Re: Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/13/2004
Re: DEPLOY: Over-running TXT dataspace in FQDN (-protocol I believe), Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/13/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/13/2004
Request discussion about using SUBMITTER (together with new Submitted-By RFC 2822 header) as basis for futher work, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, Tony Finch, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, David Woodhouse, 09/13/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/13/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 09/13/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 09/13/2004
TECH-ERROR: SenderID sets recomendation for forwarders that are not compatible with RFC 2822, william(at)elan.net, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dave Crocker, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/12/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/12/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Frank Ellermann, 09/12/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Peter Koch, 09/12/2004
Consensus decision vs. deployment concerns, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/12/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Dave Crocker, 09/12/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, Douglas Otis, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/12/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Eric A. Hall, 09/12/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, wayne, 09/12/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Andrew Newton, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/12/2004
Re: What the lawyers and suits think, jpinkerton, 09/12/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 09/11/2004
What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., 09/11/2004
Will SPFv1 records be ok for the "MAIL FROM" scope?, wayne, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, George Mitchell, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, william(at)elan.net, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alex van den Bogaerdt, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Mark C. Langston, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Mark C. Langston, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Daniel Quinlan, 09/11/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Guillaume Filion, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Chuck Mead, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Hadmut Danisch, 09/11/2004
Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, wayne, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/11/2004
co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004, Andrew Newton, 09/11/2004
Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Marshall Rose, 09/11/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/11/2004
Re: Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, wayne, 09/11/2004
Re: [Asrg] Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, william(at)elan.net, 09/11/2004
Patenting HOWTO/FAQ ?, Hadmut Danisch, 09/11/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 09/10/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 09/10/2004
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), Frank Ellermann, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Frank Ellermann, 09/10/2004
Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: [spf-discuss] Unified SPF policy daemon and constructing apersonal whitelist, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 09/10/2004
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Frank Ellermann, 09/10/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Mark Lentczner, 09/10/2004
I-D ACTION:draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt (fwd), william(at)elan.net, 09/10/2004
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michael R. Brumm, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Frank Ellermann, 09/10/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 09/10/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 09/10/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Alan DeKok, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Margaret Olson, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/10/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Harry Katz, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: Conclusion of Last Call?, Andrew Newton, 09/10/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Alan DeKok, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/10/2004
Conclusion of Last Call?, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Mark, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Michel Bouissou, 09/10/2004
RE: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Scott Kitterman, 09/10/2004
DOC-BUG: Determining the Purported Responsible Address, Graham Finlayson, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, David Woodhouse, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Sauer, Damon, 09/10/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Benjamin Franz, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Arnt Gulbrandsen, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/10/2004
Request for MARID-PRA-Examples document, Graham Finlayson, 09/10/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/10/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Tony Finch, 09/10/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 09/10/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, David Woodhouse, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Danny Angus, 09/10/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Daniel Quinlan, 09/09/2004
problems with patents: the IDN example from RFC3669, wayne, 09/09/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, wayne, 09/09/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, AccuSpam, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/09/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Ted Hardie, 09/09/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Michael R. Brumm, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Douglas Otis, 09/09/2004
RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, John Glube, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 09/09/2004
clarification on consensus call for compromise, Andrew Newton, 09/09/2004
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/09/2004
All members of "we" please raise your hands., Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/09/2004
RE: DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Patrik Fältström, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Michael Hammer, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Danny Angus, 09/09/2004
Beta Tool RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable,, Craig Spiezle, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Peter Bowyer, 09/09/2004
RE: SPF abused by spammers, Sauer, Damon, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Dean Anderson, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/09/2004
Re: SPF abused by spammers, Chuck Mead, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable,, Holm, Mark, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/09/2004
SPF abused by spammers, Markus Stumpf, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Alan DeKok, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Mark, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Margaret Olson, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/09/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, AccuSpam, 09/09/2004
Re: DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Mark, 09/09/2004
DEPLOY: microsoft SenderID wizard seriously flawed, unusable, Koen Martens, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Michel Bouissou, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, william(at)elan.net, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chuck Mead, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, william(at)elan.net, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, mazieres, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, AccuSpam, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Daniel Quinlan, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark Lentczner, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Dave Crocker, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Mark Lentczner, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Hector Santos, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Mark Lentczner, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 09/08/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], gmc, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/08/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Koen Martens, 09/08/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, william(at)elan.net, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, wayne, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Douglas Otis, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Peter Koch, 09/08/2004
Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], wayne, 09/08/2004
(no subject), Clifford Hammerschmidt, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Ryan Ordway, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tripp Cox, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Jim Fenton, 09/08/2004
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Nate Leon, 09/08/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, David Woodhouse, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, David Woodhouse, 09/08/2004
RE: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Sauer, Damon, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Wietse Venema, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Meng Weng Wong, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Guillaume Filion, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Matt Sergeant, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Rand Wacker, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Mark C. Langston, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Chris Haynes, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/08/2004
Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Tony Finch, 09/08/2004
consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope, Andrew Newton, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Matt Sergeant, 09/08/2004
RE: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], terry, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Wietse Venema, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Margaret Olson, 09/08/2004
DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify], Margaret Olson, 09/08/2004
DEPLOY: not at the University of Cambridge, Tony Finch, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/08/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 09/08/2004
Re: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, mazieres, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, wayne, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Meng Weng Wong, 09/07/2004
TECH-OMISSION (-protocol): Partial IPs with CIDRs allowed?, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH-OMISSION:Submitter concept should be expanded to include Peristent User Accounts (PUA), Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Daniel Senie, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 09/07/2004
DOC-BUG: -pra intro, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Hector Santos, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 09/07/2004
TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, Ryan Ordway, 09/07/2004
Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records, Ryan Ordway, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Mark Lentczner, 09/07/2004
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/07/2004
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Max Kanat-Alexander, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Dean Anderson, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Carl S. Gutekunst, 09/07/2004
RE: consensus call of RR prefix, Hallam-Baker, Phillip, 09/07/2004
Re:, Ted Hardie, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Douglas Otis, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
[no subject], Robin Cover, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
RE: DOC-BUG: Terminology: Purported Responsible Address, Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
RE: [DOCBUG] -submitter, 5.3, Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Ryan Malayter, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
RE: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Harry Katz, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Chris Haynes, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Andrew Newton, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 09/07/2004
TECH-ERROR (-core): introduction, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
DOC-BUG (-core): typo, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
TECH-ERROR (-core): current practice, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
TECH-OMISSION (-core): multiple alias-forwarding hops, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
TECH-OMISSION (-core): alias-forwarding and multiple recipients, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
TECH-ERROR (-core): misuse of Resent- fields, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH OMISSION: Stronger checks against email forgery, Tony Finch, 09/07/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, David Woodhouse, 09/07/2004
RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Graham Murray, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 09/06/2004
RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 09/06/2004
RE: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michael R. Brumm, 09/06/2004
Re: RR sizes, was consensus call of RR prefix, John Levine, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
RE: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Scott Kitterman, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, wayne, 09/06/2004
Re: consensus call of RR prefix, David Blacka, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Daniel Senie, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, ned . freed, 09/06/2004
RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure, Jim Lyon, 09/06/2004
Re: [DEPLOY] General Issue w/ISPs blocking Port 25, Tripp Cox, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Dave Crocker, 09/06/2004
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Michel Bouissou, 09/06/2004
Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID, Chris Haynes, 09/06/2004
TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Roy Badami, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Yakov Shafranovich, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Stephane Bortzmeyer, 09/06/2004
Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify, Sam Varshavchik, 09/06/2004

Page 3 of 12
[Prev Page] [Next Page] [First Page] [Last Page]

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.