Fourth quarter 2007 Archives by author

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

Starting: Mon Oct 1 03:00:57 PDT 2007
Ending: Sun Dec 30 19:15:17 PDT 2007
Messages: 868

• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on SSP Review BASIC ISSUES   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Steve Atkins
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP'sparadigm change   Steve Atkins
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Steve Atkins
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Signal to noise ratio   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues inJanuary using jabber/concalls....   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - exception   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Ping Doug   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Apologies list   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Comment about SSP Draft - MX lookup requirement   Stephane Bortzmeyer
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Signature semantics   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Signature semantics   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Discussion of query traffic overhead   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Requirements published as RFC 5016   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] Results of survey on DKIM Reputation string use   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] dkim.org web site   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event Press Release   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-07.txt   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] RFC2821 Implementation Survey   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] -overview and -deployment html and pdf versions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Dave Crocker
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Putting away the SSP Crystal Ball   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ready for pickup   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ready for pickup   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Discussion of query traffic overhead   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Service Model summary   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Signature semantics   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP threats analysis needed   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: false negatives and false positives   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: "does not exist"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: revise list labeling   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: strict vs. integrated   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: definition of action terms   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: "does not exist"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] process exception   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: review and repair of normative vocabulary usage   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Import of normative text in a standards-track specification   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: process exception   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• Issue 1529 Author v. Originator (was Re: [ietf-dkim] A whole lotta +/-1)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1531: "does not exist"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1528: false negatives and false positives   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Process Question   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] prviate review of SSP summary description draft   Dave Crocker
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP'sparadigm change   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Dave Crocker
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Dave Crocker
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Dave Crocker
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1534: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - exception   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-01 posted   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issues 1525/1426 (was Re: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address(fwd)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM/SSP C/C++ API   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP sender expectations   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs.Validity)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] OT: apps-review (was: making SSP useless in one short step)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] "no mail" (was: Next-generation SPF cabal)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: sender practices, as opposed to something else   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: sender practices, as opposed to something else   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: definition of action terms   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: "does not exist"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Discussion of query traffic overhead   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS] (was: SSP Issues list)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] A whole lotta +/-1 (was: Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-01 posted   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] SSP + SPF records in DNS (was: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   J D Falk
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   J D Falk
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices(draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   J D Falk
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   J D Falk
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP'sparadigm change   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP threats analysis needed   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or Define it   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Import of normative text in a standards-trackspecification   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   J D Falk
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   J D Falk
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] TracingSSP'sparadigm change   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filteringengine and not end-users   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] no signature or bad signature   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] So...what's the current consensus?   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] IETF-70 Agenda   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Updated agenda for tomorrow   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue tracking for SSP   Stephen Farrell
• Issue #1513, (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] SSP Issues list   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: process exception   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Stephen Farrell
• Issue #1527: (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality -v2   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] A whole lotta +/-1   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Process Question   Stephen Farrell
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Stephen Farrell
• 99.6% (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM stats   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 2 Language and Terminology   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 4 Detailed Description   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y (was: DKIM Interoperability Event notes)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Sensitivity surrounding the "handling" tag   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] IETF-70 Agenda   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Third-Party Signature Authorizations and Email-Address Restrictions   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and local parts   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1519: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1519: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"// edits   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: "does not exist"   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Service Model summary   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: deprecate t=testing   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Discussion of query traffic overhead   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1532: revise list labeling   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jim Fenton
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP'sparadigm change   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1528: false negatives and false positives   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1533: strict vs. integrated   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1534: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jim Fenton
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1534: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with areporting address (fwd)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 2 Language and Terminology   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 4 Detailed Description   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Sensitivity surrounding the "handling" tag   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 2 Language and Terminology   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 4 Detailed Description   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on SSP Review BASIC ISSUES   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] making SSP useless in one short step   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-00.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-06.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-07.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] list mail again, was suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Scott Kitterman
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] making SSP useless in one short step   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Scott Kitterman
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Putting away the SSP Crystal Ball   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues inJanuary using jabber/concalls....   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Authentication-Results: header draft   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting-01 posted   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   John L
• [ietf-dkim] list identities, was SSP   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   John L
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM does domain signing, not mailbox signing   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   John L
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   John L
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue tracker URL   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: "does not exist"   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or Define it   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1535: Simplify SSP decision tree   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1534: Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] off the air till after the holidays   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] list mail again, was suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] the usual list nonsense, was suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] yet more of the usual list nonsense, was suspicious   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Comment about SSP Draft - MX lookup requirement   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP and local parts   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] making SSP useless in one short step   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Re: reductio ad hominem   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] sender practices, as opposed to something else   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Signature semantics   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: minimal version of SSP, was Tracing ...   John Levine
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Conflicts between -ssp-requirements and -ssp   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] yet more of the usual list nonsense, was suspicious   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices(draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview   Jeff Macdonald
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: deprecate t=testing   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   David Mayne
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM reputation   Keith Moore
• [ietf-dkim] Conflicts between -ssp-requirements and -ssp   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Graham Murray
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address(fwd)   O'Reirdan, Michael
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Results of survey on DKIM Reputation string use   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM reputation   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] yet more of the usual list nonsense, was suspicious   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-tpa-ssp-02 posted   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Third-Party Signature Authorizations and Email-Address Restrictions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Third-Party Signature Authorizations and Email-Address Restrictions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Douglas Otis
• creeping i= (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on SSP Review BASIC ISSUES   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"// edits   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1519] [Comment] SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict" // correction   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1519: SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Change "originator" to "author"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Ping Doug   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] no signature or bad signature   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices(draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices(draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Comments on SSP Review BASIC ISSUES   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Putting away the SSP Crystal Ball   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Does nobody or everybody want SSP?   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal   Patrick Peterson
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Pete Resnick
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM/SSP C/C++ API   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   SM
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Sensitivity surrounding the "handling" tag   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Comment about SSP Draft - MX lookup requirement   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM/SSP C/C++ API   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 4 Detailed Description   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM Interoperability Event notes   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP-01 Intro's definition of forgery a bit imprecise   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Hector Santos
• threat modeling & use cases (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] sender practices, as opposed to something else   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] sender practices, as opposed to something else   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A/R Trust Services   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: sender practices, as opposed to something else   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Reputation is out of scope or Define it   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1527:   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Process Question   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1524: Signature semantics   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Issues 1525/1426 (was Re: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics)   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] suspicious and SUSPICIOUS   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: ssp should not link "all" and third parties   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: the new handling tag   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address (fwd)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reportingaddress(fwd)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility vs. Validity   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] making SSP useless in one short step   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] making SSP useless in one short step   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1512: Re: making SSP useless in one short step   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A perspective on what SSP is attempting   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Import of normative text in a standards-track specification   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: Simplify SSP decision tree   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1520: limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] A whole lotta +/-1   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue #1521: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: deprecate t=testing   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Process Question   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Michael Thomas
• Issue 1527 - Threats (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment)   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] Re: 99.6%   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-00   IETF I-D Submission Tool
• [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-overview-06   IETF I-D Submission Tool
• [ietf-dkim] Comment about SSP Draft - MX lookup requirement   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] SSP sender expectations   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] sender practices, as opposed to something else   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] sender practices, as opposed to something else   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] The limits of DKIM and SSP   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Hostile to DKIM deployment   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Accidental versus malicous error (was: SSP assist DKIM)   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM stats   abel
• [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists as 2822-Sender (was: Responsibility vs. Validity)   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: Limit the application of SSP to unsignedmessages   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM stats   stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie

Last message date: Sun Dec 30 19:15:17 PDT 2007
Archived on: Sun Dec 30 19:15:41 PDT 2007

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