Fourth quarter 2006 Archives by author

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

Starting: Sun Oct 1 22:52:58 PDT 2006
Ending: Sat Dec 30 05:05:06 PDT 2006
Messages: 661

• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Typo in the ABNF? (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-07.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Eric Allman
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: requirement to enumerate receiver side benefits of SSP?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Steven M. Bellovin
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Steven M. Bellovin
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Steven M. Bellovin
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: "Isigneverything" yes/no)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: requirement to enumerate receiver side benefits of SSP?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] receiver role in ssp   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Typo in the ABNF? (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-07.txt   Stephane Bortzmeyer
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM jabber room problems -- meeting cancelled   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] Summary of DKIM jabber meeting on 12 Oct   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] Status of draft-ietf-dkim-base   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] San Diego: Tuesday, 9-11:30   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] what IS the status of open issues?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] www.dkim.org is now a full-fledged "direct" web address   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Revised -base, -overview and -ssp-requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] dkim.org/ietf-dkim.html updated   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] incremental vs. infrastructure adoption   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] test -- ignore   Dave Crocker
• Don't ignore (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] test -- ignore)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] test -- ignore   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] incremental vs. infrastructure adoption   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: clarify i= vs. SSP   Dave Crocker
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Dave Crocker
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Dave Crocker
• rfc2821.Sender usage (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] incremental vs. infrastructure adoption   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] dkim.org home page changes and updates   Dave Crocker
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Dave Crocker
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Dave Crocker
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Damon
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Mark Delany
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Mark Delany
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Mark Delany
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM jabber room problems -- meeting cancelled   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] OT: 10*10 (was: ssp req 02 // affiliation restrictions)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required (was: "I sign everything" yes/no)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] OT: Return-Path considerations (was: "I sign everything" yes/no)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] EAI + SSP status (was: "I sign everything" yes/no)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Last calls for lemonade (was: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Is "sender" in 4.1 4th paragraph okay / what happens with Alice's SSP in 5.3   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Resend-cruft (was: ISSUE: Better definition of"DKIM signing complete" required)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: "I sign everything" yes/no)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: new issue: clarify i= vs. SSP   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1360: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1358 ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM and VBR tester available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber tomorrow 1500 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] San Diego agenda   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: 67th IETF Agenda]   Stephen Farrell
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] No jabber tomorrow...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] ssp req 02 available   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-06.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber this Thursday...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber this Thursday...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Draft agenda for San Diego   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber this Thursday...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM wg summary for SAAG   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete"required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Stephen Farrell
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Stephen Farrell
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Secrtion 6.3 Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Glube
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   John Glube
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   John Glube
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] More Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Secrtion 6.3 Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Secrtion 6.3 Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] More Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Pseudocode processing algorithm   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] RE: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' toProposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: "I signeverything" yes/no)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM and 8 bit data   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM and VBR tester available   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   The IESG
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-06.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-03.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-07.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   Cullen Jennings
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   Cullen Jennings
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1358 ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Scott Kitterman
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   Scott Kitterman
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Scott Kitterman
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] what IS the status of open issues?   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Eliot Lear
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Canonicalization that decodes Content-Transfer-Encoding   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM and 8 bit data   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: news and lists again, was "I sign everything" yes/no   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   John Levine
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   John R Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] incremental vs. infrastructure adoption   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Policy decision tree outcomes   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete"required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: "I sign everything" yes/no)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] incremental vs. infrastructure adoption   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Future uses of DKIM in Netnews (was: "I signeverything" yes/no)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] Regarding #1201: change the syntax from SPF compat to human compat   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1360: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1358 ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1360: ssp-requirements-01 // Designated Signing Domain Scenario missing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-dosp-02   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM and VBR tester available   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: fate of ssp-reqs draft...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ssp req 02 // affiliation restrictions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ssp req 02 // affiliation restrictions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] OT: 10*10   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Secrtion 6.3 Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: clarify i= vs. SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking/Restritive-Policy vs Annotation/Associative-Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking/Restritive-Policy vs Annotation/Associative-Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking/Restritive-Policy vs Annotation/Associative-Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM-Signature header example in draft-ietf-dkim-base-07b   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   David Sanchez
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   David Sanchez
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM and VBR tester available   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Secrtion 6.3 Comments ondraft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-02.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete"required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signingcomplete"required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIMsigning complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signingcomplete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of"DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] News FYI - Insider Threats   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Hector Santos
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Hector Santos
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Possible C14N incorporating MIME decoding   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking/Restritive-Policy vs Annotation/Associative-Policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking/Restritive-Policy vs Annotation/Associative-Policy   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Blocking improperly signed messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Hector Santos
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Hector Santos
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Hector Santos
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Hector Santos
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Hector Santos
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-07.txt   SUZUKI Takahiko
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber session this Thursday 1500 UTC   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] ssp req 02 available   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: "I sign everything" yes/no   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: clarify i= vs. SSP   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] new issue: requirement to enumerate receiver side benefits of SSP?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   Wietse Venema
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Blocking improperly signed messages   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382   david repking
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-02.txt   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
• [ietf-dkim] 1358 ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.   wayne
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   wayne
• Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] SSP is the Sender Signing Practices, not the Sender's accreditation   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Collection of use cases for SSP requirements   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   wayne
• [ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of "DKIM signing complete" required   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains   william(at)elan.net

Last message date: Sat Dec 30 05:05:06 PDT 2006
Archived on: Sat Dec 30 05:05:33 PDT 2006

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