Third quarter 2006 Archives by author

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

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

• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Jim Fenton (fenton)
• [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing   Stefan Görling
• [ietf-dkim] A question about DKIM and Phishing   Stefan Görling
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dkim-base-03 key-*-tag minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: more details of key record format in base   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Consistency among keys using q= alternatives   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] plain-text and g=   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Resent-* handling (was: Draft minutes...)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] timing on base-04 draft   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NSsubdomain delegation   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] RE: 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on asuccessfulverify?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest ProtectionPossible   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP thought experiment   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1stpartyvalid signatures.   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Tshirt requests   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated SigningDomains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibilityconcerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt] comments first glance   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue 5.3 we never send mail   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP -Suggestion to Remove this.   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 //designation   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] "adjunct" DKIM web page updated   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on -overview document?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Final Call for Participation -- CEAS 2006   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Document Action: 'Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)' to Informational RFC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Reflector update   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Dave Crocker
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Dave Crocker
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Possible Signing Practices non-technical terminology   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] remote access   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Audience for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Question regarding computing message hashes   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Direct vs. Indirect specification of the accountable domain   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns withDesignatedSigningDomains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] What community problem is the WG solving?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] house analogy   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Clarity among the usage scenarios   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Discover "requirement"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Generic requirements for SSP, v1.   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other"originator" headers?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP additional tag?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Real Numbers   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of 2822.From policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Section 5.1 Last Paragraph.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] there is no such thing as a valid dkim-base *message*   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] CNAME's   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] DKIIM WG - quck summary for saag   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] include   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] include   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] scenarios   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] What third-party ISP problem?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] tracker/jabber info   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   Tim Draegen
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] review of draft-ietf-dkim-overview-01   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requirements clarifications: Listed third parties treated like first party and must not require/specify   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Clarification: Section 5.4.6   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Question regarding computing message hashes   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 822/2822 or just 2822   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM, privacy, and user authentication   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: T-Shirt Entries   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: What community problem is the WG solving?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] base state (was: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Feature matrix   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement to explain Resent-* (was: Additional per user policy requirments)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed always (was: user level ssp)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01 available   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: tracker/jabber info   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Problems with Scenario 4: Resent   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Jabber server?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. forDoes Not Send   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] domain (reputation) semantics: selectors vs. sub-domains   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Keys vs. Reputation   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• Self-assertion of...well, anything at all (was Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: user level ssp   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP= FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• accept, deny, or other delivery decisions (was Re: [ietf-dkim]SSP=FAILURE DETECTION)   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5} {3.5}   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] bh=; l=0;   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: more details of key record format in base   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] jabber   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Document Action: 'Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)' to Informational RFC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Eat all CR/LF - STRIP Canonicalization Method   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP complications, wa The URL to my paper ...   Stephen Farrell
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Crypto Algorithm policy/practice   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Requirements: SSP must offer Highest Protection Possible   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Requirement: Policy Attributes Must Enhance the Security and Surviabiility of DKIM-BASE   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP discussion...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Final Montreal minutes...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: 5.3, req#2 additional note...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] issue: requirement #10 Publishing Hashing (cryptographic algorithms) methods...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] See ya in a week-ish...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy designdecision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning Domains   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01 available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: requrements-01// security concerns regarding policy domain designations rather than delegations   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber meeting Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber server problem...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber server?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] quick summary of Sep 21 jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] quick summary of Sep 21 jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Stephen Farrell
• jabber problems (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete")   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: jabber problems   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4686 on Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Quick summary of sep 28th jabber   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] open jabber issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Req. for Does Not Send   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Jim Fenton
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Responsibility Delegation - Security Concerns   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Where to look for the signing practice   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomain delegation   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Jim Fenton
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: What is the purpose of SSP? {3.5}   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation and Designation (#1360)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] Policy Discovery   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp (let me review)   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] Sign it all, publish the policy, and trust the policy.   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Thomas A. Fine
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successfulverify?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] RE: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How MALLET PERFORMS a DOWNGRADE ATTACK   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The key record upgrade attack   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Invalid rhetorical moves   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP False positives/negatives   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How to reconcile passive vs active?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Signalling DKIM support before DATA   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] How much bogosity on the part of filter writers to cope with?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buy design decision   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Bayesian filters are the pits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Delegating responsibility: a make vs. buydesigndecision   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation trusted layers is out of scope   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• BUSTED - RE: [ietf-dkim] New Thread: Use of CNAME in place of NS subdomaindelegation   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegation semantics   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Itemized Summary of SSP Requirements-00   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Feature matrix   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional per user policy requirments   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• tree walking (was - Re: [ietf-dkim] user level ssp)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Algortihm transitions   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and mailing lists   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] dots in selectors   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] plain-text and g=   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] draft text for specify IANA instructions   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] selectors, _policy._domainkey   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Possible problem with "simple" body canonicalization -- trailing CRLFs   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 //deprecated cryptographic algorithms   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Relaxed Body Canon   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Base-04 // ABNF cruft & errors   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] WG and individual submissions...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements comment: Bigbank example description   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification: Specification of domain holder   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] T-Shirt Entries   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] +1 on requirements for ssp-like-thing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] drop requirement to sign "From" or other "originator" headers?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to proceed with SSP   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Status of -base after working-group last call   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM base v=0.4 up and running   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] I send nothing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] requirements   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on where/how SSP stuff is published...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Reflector update   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 3rd party signing   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Requirements on how SSP stuff is found...   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are verifiers expected to query SSP on a successful verify?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] A more fundamental SSP axiom   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] punting into near-term standardization   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The problem with sender policy   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Scalability concerns with Designated Signing Domains   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Delegated signatures in real life   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] user level ssp   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The basic problem with SSP   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP = FAILURE DETECTION   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Definition of "DKIM Signer Complete"   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Old issue: What is the role of SSP?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] IANA considerations...   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• Reference to ID-AUTH-RES (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Paul Hoffman
• DKIM TTPs (was Re: [ietf-dkim] editorials and nits)   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Agenda Item Safer than SSP   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-04 submitted   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] base-04 //inverting key t= 's'ub-domain flag   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Internationalized domain names   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] I sign nothing / only only 3rd party / some mail   Paul Hoffman