Third quarter 2006 Archives by author

• Messages sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ date ]
• More info on this list...

Starting: Sat Jul 1 06:40:49 PDT 2006
Ending: Fri Sep 29 17:09:47 PDT 2006
Messages: 2141

• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Jim Fenton (fenton)
• [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing   Stefan Görling
• [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing   Stefan Görling
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-base-03 key-*-tag minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: more details of key record format in base   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Consistency among keys using q= alternatives   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] plain-text and g=   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Resent-* handling (was: Draft minutes...)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] timing on base-04 draft   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] RE: 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on asuccessfulverify?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest ProtectionPossible   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalid signatures.   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Tshirt requests   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibilityconcerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt] comments first glance   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue 5.3 we never send mail   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP -Suggestion to Remove this.   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 //designation   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] "adjunct" DKIM web page updated   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Final Call for Participation -- CEAS 2006   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Document Action: 'Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)' to Informational RFC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Reflector update   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Dave Crocker
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Dave Crocker
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Possible Signing Practices non-technical terminology   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] remote access   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Audience for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Direct vs. Indirect specification of the accountable domain   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What community problem is the WG solving?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] house analogy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Clarity among the usage scenarios   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Discover "requirement"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Generic requirements for SSP, v1.   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other"originator" headers?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Real Numbers   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of 2822.From policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.1 Last Paragraph.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] DKIIM WG - quck summary for saag   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] include   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] include   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] tracker/jabber info   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requirements clarifications: Listed third parties treated like first party and must not require/specify   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Question regarding computing message hashes   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 822/2822 or just 2822   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: T-Shirt Entries   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: What community problem is the WG solving?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] base state (was: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Feature matrix   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement to explain Resent-* (was: Additional per user policy requirments)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed always (was: user level ssp)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01 available   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: tracker/jabber info   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Jabber server?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• Self-assertion of...well, anything at all (was Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: more details of key record format in base   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] jabber   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Document Action: 'Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)' to Informational RFC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviabiility of DKIM-BASE   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP discussion...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Final Montreal minutes...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: 5.3, req#2 additional note...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] See ya in a week-ish...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01 available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber meeting Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber server problem...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber server?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] quick summary of Sep 21 jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] quick summary of Sep 21 jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Stephen Farrell
• jabber problems (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete")   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Quick summary of sep 28th jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. for Does Not Send   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Where to look for the signing practice   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp (let me review)   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] Sign it all, publish the policy, and trust the policy.   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] RE: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Invalid rhetorical moves   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How much bogosity on the part of filter writers to cope with?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• BUSTED - RE: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Feature matrix   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Algortihm transitions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] plain-text and g=   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed Body Canon   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // ABNF cruft & errors   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM base v=0.4 up and running   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Reflector update   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• Reference to ID-AUTH-RES (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Document Action: 'Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)' to Informational RFC   The IESG
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-04.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-05.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-01.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822 was - Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Scott Kitterman
• MX 0 . (was Re: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options)   Scott Kitterman
• MX 0 . (was Re: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Summarizing the small/non-technical domain owner scenario   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] remote access   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement clarification: NS delegation   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: DNS Exchange determinism   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Please disregard - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] requirements clarifications: Listed third parties treated like first party and must not require/specify   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 2822.From or 2822.Sender and 2822.From was:Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] When will there be SSP Requirements-01?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Where to look for the signing practice   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Scott Kitterman
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Scott Kitterman
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Scott Kitterman
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Peter Koch
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Peter Koch
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Peter Koch
• [ietf-dkim] Re: CNAME's   John L
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   John L
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   John L
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Relaxed Body Canon   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] RE: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   John L
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   John L
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   John L
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John L
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   John L
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   John L
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   John L
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   John L
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: CNAME's   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: CNAME's   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Eliot Lear
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Eliot Lear
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM issues   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Working-Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dkim-base-03   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // ABNF cruft & errors   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] bare CR and 822/2822 or just 2822   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   John Levine
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   John Levine
• jabber problems (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete")   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Jeff Macdonald
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   David Mayne
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   David Mayne
• [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes   Roman Meisl
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's + multiple selector labels   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // Semantics of Multiple Signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // ABNF cruft & errors   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //Security Concerns beyond Zone delegation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // ABNF cruft & errors   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Designated Signing Domains and Don't Sign assertions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] include   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing (designated and non-designated)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Client Policy Requirement   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] List based policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements //definitions to support list concept   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-ssp-req-00// Designated Domain + DKIM Signer Extended   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-ssp-req-00// Designated Domain + DKIM SignerExtended   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] When will there be SSP Requirements-01?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] When will there be SSP Requirements-01?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Role of 2822.From policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating overhead   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] When is 2822.From valid?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating Techniques   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The scope of policy applicability and general adoption   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 // local-part encoding   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 // local-part encoding   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Additional per user policy requirments   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp (let me review)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] house analogy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Look-alikes   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Capturing DKIM relationships to thwart look-alikes   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Preventing spoofs without breaking SMTP   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re:[ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Wait and See?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01 // Negative + Positive view.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01 // signing on behalf   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber server?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] quick summary of Sep 21 jabber   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP -Suggestion to Remove this.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] jabber interims...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-dosp   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. for Does Not Send   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. for Does Not Send   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-dosp-01   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Back to basics with requirements   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Rescorla
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Rescorla
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Rescorla
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   SM
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" bodycanonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other"originator" headers?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with bodycanonicalization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with bodycanonicalization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed Body Canon   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] include   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Signature Authorization Protocol (DSAP)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirement: SSP must|should support DKIM-BASE semantics   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP - Sender Signing Policy archived discussions   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviabiility of DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviability of DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] List based policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP: The WalMart Analogy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] remote access   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is about obtaining 0% False Positives   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirement #9 - Protocol must not be required to be invoked ...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalid signatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalidsignatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalidsignatures.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-ssp-req-00// Designated Domain + DKIM SignerExtended   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] When will there be SSP Requirements-01?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] When will there be SSP Requirements-01?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsible SSP usage   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of 2822.From policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP backward compatibility   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Where to look for the signing practice   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Default SSP Policy Lookup Method   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Lookup for Non-Signed Mail   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Direct vs. Indirect specification of the accountabledomain   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concernswith DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement #10 - List of possible hashing methods   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Policies and SSP-02 Comments   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Using Reputation with DKIM-BASE - Its really not out of scope.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation vs SSP   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Preventing spoofs without breaking SMTP   Hector Santos
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re:[ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP -Suggestion to Remove this.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-base-03 key-*-tag minor issues   SUZUKI Takahiko
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Michael Thomas
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed Body Canon   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Relaxed Body Canon   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed Body Canon   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] include   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] include   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement clarification: NS delegation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Standard for resource record name space collision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01 available   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] What are the security problems of DKIM-BASE worh addressing with policy Concepts?   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalidsignatures.   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalidsignatures.   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Wietse Venema
• BUSTED - RE: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Sandy Wills
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Sandy Wills
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Sandy Wills
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Sandy Wills
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: DKIM - ROOM CHANGE]   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] DKIIM WG - quck summary for saag   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] base WGLC reminder - Friday   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements //definitions to support list concept   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   william(at)elan.net
• MX 0 . (was Re: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options)   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Possible Signing Practices non-technical terminology   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   william(at)elan.net
• Identity selection related requirements (Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender)   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   william(at)elan.net
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   william(at)elan.net
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   william(at)elan.net