First quarter 2007 Archives by author

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

Starting: Mon Jan 1 22:19:27 PDT 2007
Ending: Fri Mar 30 15:11:04 PDT 2007
Messages: 589

• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-09 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-10 submitted   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: submission for draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Steve Atkins
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Steve Atkins
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing list signatures   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The DKIM WG is within security?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] The DKIM WG is within security?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank linesfor SIMPLE c14n.   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Jon Callas
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   Gino Cerullo
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber reminder - tomorrow at 1600 UTC   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Email upgrade history   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Characteristics for describing an SSP proposal   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Dave Crocker
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: submission for draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: submission for draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Production use of DKIM   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Production use of DKIM   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Policy   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes   Dennis Dayman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Dennis Dayman
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Dennis Dayman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   EKR
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: basic question   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] example.edu (was: basic question)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: example.edu   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: draft-ietf-dkim-base-09 submitted   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Jabber reminder - tomorrow at 1600 UTC   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Jabber reminder - tomorrow at 1600 UTC   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1365 yes/no   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] #1398 (was: Today's jabber notes...)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: #1398   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: LWSP bugs in base (was: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Protocol Policy Publication   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Meeting in Prague...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: draft-ietf-dkim-base-09 submitted   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP restart   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-10 submitted   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Policy   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Jabber reminder - tomorrow at 1600 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Jabber reminder - tomorrow at 1600 UTC   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Prague agena slots...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Stephen Farrell
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] so can we get to some decisions now...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Administrivia...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Agenda posted...   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Stephen Farrell
• WGLC on ssp-reqs (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-03.txt)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG summary for SAAG   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 8.1 Misuse Of Body Limit - Needs some Insight here!   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Domain ignore list in sec 6.1.1 ?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Jim Fenton
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Jim Fenton
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-03   Jim Fenton
• [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] 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] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] A concrete use case for policy   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Policy   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7:Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] #1398   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] #1398   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Protocol Policy Publication   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: submission for draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Arvel Hathcock
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Arvel Hathcock
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Paul Hoffman
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Paul Hoffman
• [ietf-dkim] Protocol Action: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard   The IESG
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-09.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-10.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-03.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Cullen Jennings
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Cullen Jennings
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Cullen Jennings
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] req 6.3.8 support?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Scott Kitterman
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Eliot Lear
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Eliot Lear
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-10 submitted   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Domain ignore list in sec 6.1.1 ?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   John Levine
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   John Levine
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   John R Levine
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   John R Levine
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Charles Lindsey
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Charles Lindsey
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Charles Lindsey
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Charles Lindsey
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] example.edu (was: basic question)   RL 'Bob' Morgan
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Graham Murray
• [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] mutant message validation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank linesfor SIMPLE c14n.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank linesfor SIMPLE c14n.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The DKIM WG is within security?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The DKIM WG is within security?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] base-09 8.13. Inappropriate Signing   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: draft-ietf-dkim-base-09 submitted   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain ignore list in sec 6.1.1 ?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Configuring "unacceptable" domains   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] When to check policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Why Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Validating policy reduces overhead?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Douglas Otis
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Douglas Otis
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Douglas Otis
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Headers other than From   Douglas Otis
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Douglas Otis
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1386 and downgrade attacks   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Douglas Otis
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Douglas Otis
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Douglas Otis
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Douglas Otis
• Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Douglas Otis
• Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Proposed 1368 wording draft 1   Douglas Otis
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Importance of SSP   Douglas Otis
• Fwd: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION: draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Reputation Damage without SSP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   SM
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: canonicalized null body and dkim   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 8.1 Misuse Of Body Limit - Needs some Insight here!   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Additional lookups   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• Unequal treatment RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :   Michael Thomas
• more 1368 discussion (Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll :)   Michael Thomas
• 1368 straw-poll : (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Deployment Non-Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade and Downgrade Attacks)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: We are actually disagreeing on the point of policy Was RE: 1368 straw-poll   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Today's jabber notes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] req 6.3.8 support?   Michael Thomas
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Deployment Scenario 7: Cryptographic Upgrade andDowngrade Attacks   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] #1398   Michael Thomas
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] #1398   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes...   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] LWSP in base64-encoded public key TXT RR   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Strawpoll on SSP requirement 5.3.10   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiple linked signatures   Wietse Venema
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Wietse Venema
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Wietse Venema
• Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] basic question   david
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   william(at)elan.net
• [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures   william(at)elan.net

Last message date: Fri Mar 30 15:11:04 PDT 2007
Archived on: Fri Mar 30 15:13:33 PDT 2007

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