Third quarter 2006 Archives by author
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
Last message date:
Fri Sep 29 17:09:47 PDT 2006
Archived on: Fri Sep 29 17:09:27 PDT 2006
This archive was generated by
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition).