First quarter 2008 Archives by thread

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

Starting: Tue Jan 1 15:15:28 PST 2008
Ending: Mon Mar 31 19:29:26 PDT 2008
Messages: 1052

• [ietf-dkim] SSP + SPF records in DNS (was: New Issue: Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?)   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Julian Mehnle
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Julian Mehnle
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP + SPF records in DNS   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] So...what's the current consensus?   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Meeting at next IETF   Stephen Farrell
  • [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?   Livingood, Jason
    • [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?   Tony Hansen
    • [ietf-dkim] DKIM WG Page Messed Up?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue #1541 - Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update   Hector Santos
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendationfor an RFC 4871 update   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] SHA256 not supported on Windows XP/2000/NT   Hector Santos
  • [ietf-dkim] SHA256 not supported on Windows XP/2000/NT   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] SHA256 not supported on Windows XP/2000/NT   Mircea Purdea
• [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   robert at barclayfamily.com
  • [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   Jim Fenton
    • [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   robert at barclayfamily.com
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Possible issue with Parent Domain logic in SSP   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Siegel, Ellen
  • [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Jim Fenton
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Some concerns with SSP impact on verysmall businesses   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Some concerns with SSP impact on very small businesses   Mark Martinec
• [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Stephen Farrell
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP issues status   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP issues status   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS] (was: SSP issues status)   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS] (was: SSP issues status)   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: remove [FWS]   Michael Thomas
  • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Stephen Farrell
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Stephen Farrell
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Steve Atkins
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Mark Delany
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Steve Atkins
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation (was: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages)   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation (was: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages)   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1521 will damage DKIM/SSP   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP vs. reputation   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP vs. reputation   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Reputation vs SSP   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Mark Delany
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
      • reputation is orthogonal (RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages)   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jeff Macdonald
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Steve Atkins
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Steve Atkins
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSPtounsigned messages   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] The first Internet mailing list   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the entire world will change their mail systems so that SSP sort of works   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP tounsigned messages   Damon
  • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Barry Leiba
    • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Steve Atkins
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Jim Fenton
    • [ietf-dkim] Issue:1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict"   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration   Florian Sager
  • [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration   John Levine
    • [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration   Florian Sager
• [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871: Signature Expiration   Florian Sager
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • 1:1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   J D Falk
      • 1:1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   Scott Kitterman
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   John Levine
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   Jim Fenton
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   John L
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   Jim Fenton
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   John L
      • 1: 1 (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthorbreaks email semantics)   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] OT: 300, 000 bounces (was: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties)   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] OT: 300, 000 bounces (was: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties)   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: OT: 300,000 bounces   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: OT: 300,000 bounces   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: random stangers, was 1: 1   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: 1: 1 and assertions about third parties   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingbyfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   J D Falk
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Dave Crocker
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Michael Thomas
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Dave Crocker
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Michael Thomas
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Dave Crocker
      • MUA (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to postingby firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Stephen Farrell
      • [ietf-dkim] 1534 (was: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics)   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   SM
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?)   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?)   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- combine Arvel's, Doug's, and John's ideas (?)   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   robert at barclayfamily.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jeff Macdonald
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jeff Macdonald
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] DNS delegation takes care of the authorization   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Issue 1542: SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Jeff Macdonald
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthor breaks email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting byfirstAuthorbreaks email semantics   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] email semantics (was: ISSUE 1525 [...])   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: email semantics   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by firstAuthor breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Charles Lindsey
    • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] No teleconference   DKIM Chair
  • [ietf-dkim] No teleconference   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
    • [ietf-dkim] No teleconference   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers   Michael Thomas
  • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers   Steve Atkins
    • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: SSP version numbers   Michael Thomas
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Arvel Hathcock
  • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Dave Crocker
    • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Arvel Hathcock
  • [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] DKIM performance metrics studies?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   J D Falk
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Steve Atkins
    • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Eliot Lear
    • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Matthew Joseff
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Frank Ellermann
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Tony Finch
    • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Barry Leiba
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Jon Callas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   J D Falk
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Srsly.   Siegel, Ellen
      • reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.)   J D Falk
      • reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.)   Steve Atkins
      • reasons to ignore valid SSP (was RE: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.)   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Michael Thomas
      • New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously.)   Stephen Farrell
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields asinput to SSP   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields asinput to SSP   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Hallam-Baker, Phillip
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: the more reliable signature fallacy   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Arvel Hathcock
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   SM
• [ietf-dkim] quick test   J.D. Falk
  • [ietf-dkim] quick test   J D Falk
    • [ietf-dkim] quick test   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] quick test   Tony Hansen
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: quick test   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: quick test   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: quick test   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] adding DKIM to Thunderbird 'verification' extension   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Audian Paxson
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Douglas Otis
  • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Charles Lindsey
    • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Stephen Farrell
      • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Stephen Farrell
    • [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Douglas Otis
      • ***SPAM-3*** Re: [ietf-dkim] What is your view on these three SSP topics?   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures   Charles Lindsey
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Associated Signatures   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   SM
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   John Levine
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   hsantos at santronics.com
  • [ietf-dkim] Seriously.   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   hsantos at santronics.com
• [ietf-dkim] the more reliable signature fallacy   hsantos at santronics.com
• [ietf-dkim] Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery   hsantos at santronics.com
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Using SUBMITTER (RFC 4405) as a SSP discovery   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
  • [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages   Damon
    • [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Price of Rice in China   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   John L
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Tony Finch
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
  • [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages   John Levine
  • [ietf-dkim] from'less 2822 messages   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Bug or Feature   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jim Fenton
  • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Paul Hoffman
  • [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP   Frank Ellermann
    • [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jeff Macdonald
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jeff Macdonald
  • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Hector Santos
    • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Eliot Lear
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Charles Lindsey
  • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
    • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Hector Santos
    • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Wietse Venema
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Siegel, Ellen
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Scott Kitterman
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Michael Thomas
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Dave Crocker
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   John Levine
      • [ietf-dkim] A proposal for restructuring SSP   Jim Fenton
• Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Charles Lindsey
  • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Paul Hoffman
    • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Michael Thomas
      • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
      • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Hector Santos
      • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Damon
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages   Frank Ellermann
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages   Hector Santos
      • [ietf-dkim] Re: Re: from'less 2822 messages   Damon
    • Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: from'less 2822 messages   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Draft of ASP, Author Signing Policy   John L
  • [ietf-dkim] Draft of ASP, Author Signing Policy   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt   Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
  • [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt   Douglas Otis
    • [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt (issue 1519?)   Jim Fenton
      • [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt (issue 1519?)   Douglas Otis
      • [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt (issue 1519?)