Second quarter 2008 Archives by author

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

Starting: Tue Apr 1 12:15:07 PDT 2008
Ending: Sun Jun 29 08:42:53 PDT 2008
Messages: 661

• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down, film at 11 (was: bot-net concern explained)   MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Eric Allman
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] treewalking vs nxdomain   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE Re: requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Steve Atkins
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Joerg Backschues
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Jon Callas
• [ietf-dkim] Moving forward toward consensus   DKIM Chair
• [ietf-dkim] New white paper: Trust in Email Begins with Authentication   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA..   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] mipassoc.org is dkim signing   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The challenge of an 'nxdomain' straw poll   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: Re: What is the standard DNS "call back"?]   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] portable reputation   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: fix ADSP's xml2rfc 'code'   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Modify tagging text   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: various minor documentation enhancements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1574: fix ADSP's xml2rfc 'code'   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1578: various minor documentation enhancements   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Dave Crocker
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Damon
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Mark Delany
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Daniel Dreymann
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting adomain tree   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree (#1534)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree (#1534)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] mipassoc.org is dkim signing   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Why only exact domains matter   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please?   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP result set (was: why we should clearly specify domain existence)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP result set   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: ADSP result set, New issue: ADSP status codes (was: ADSP result set)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Meta (was: ISSUE: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: fix ADSP's xml2rfc 'code'   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain ExistenceCheck   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting (was: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Moving forward toward consensus   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Documenting *why* the horse is dead   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain ExistenceCheck   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] OT: stupidity (was: bot-nets)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down, film at 11 (was: bot-net concern explained)   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down, film at 11   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down,film at 11   Frank Ellermann
• [ietf-dkim] the solution to the "discardable" naming problem   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] use cases for wildcard policy assertions   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] getting new features without updating old software (was RE: protecting domains that don't exist)   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] it's quiet. too quiet.   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   J D Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   J.D. Falk
• [ietf-dkim] Practices protocol naming poll (Closing issue 1550)   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Moving forward toward consensus   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Stephen Farrell
• [ietf-dkim] the solution to the "discardable" naming problem   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree (#1534)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Meta-comment re: subdomain strawpoll   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jim Fenton
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Tony Finch
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] mipassoc.org is dkim signing   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] gmail domainkeys contact?   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] need an interpretation of the base spec   Tony Hansen
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Why only exact domains matter   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] "interoperability"???   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] The challenge of an 'nxdomain' straw poll   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Arvel Hathcock
• [ietf-dkim] it's quiet. too quiet.   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] mipassoc.org is dkim signing   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] treewalking vs nxdomain   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Al Iverson
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Scott Kitterman
• [ietf-dkim] New issue: Examples in SSP-03   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] ietf-dkim Digest, Vol 118, Issue 8   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] [dkim-dev] need an interpretation of the base spec   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Theory vs. practise   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Documenting *why* the horse is dead   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Murray S. Kucherawy
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE Re: requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE Re: requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry makes ADSP undeployable   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] portable reputation   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] portable reputation   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] rt is back up...   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Revise wildcard discussion   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: clarification to A.4 on third party senders   Eliot Lear
• [ietf-dkim] OT: Conference on Email and Anti-Spam final call for papers   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Barry Leiba
• [ietf-dkim] Practices protocol naming poll (Closing issue 1550)   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Why only exact domains matter   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] portable reputation   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] portable reputation   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check ssp-03 vs levine-adsp-00   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   John Levine
• [ietf-dkim] use cases for wildcard policy assertions   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: New Issue: protecting a domain name vs.protecting a domain tree   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] ***SPAM-3*** Re: protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP (was: lookalike domains ...)   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: domain existence check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00 vs draft-otis-dkim-adsp-002   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00 vs draft-otis-dkim-adsp-002   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: domain existence check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensuscheck: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Charles Lindsey
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check ssp-03 vs levine-adsp-00   Jeff Macdonald
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] climbing the domain tree   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Section 3.1 - ASP Usage   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] NXDOMAIN vs positive existence of hostname or MX records.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Meta-comment re: subdomain strawpoll   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Thoughts on parent domain lookup (was Re: subdomain strawpoll)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Modification of the ietf-dkim-ssp-03 draft.   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-adsp-00   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-adsp-00 Section 4.2.2 correction   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-adsp-01   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] domain existence check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-otis-dkim-adsp-02   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The challenge of an 'nxdomain' straw poll   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00 vs draft-otis-dkim-adsp-002   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00 vs draft-otis-dkim-adsp-002   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: domain existence check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] requirement for one ADSP record per DNS entry is irrelevant   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP result set (was: why we should clearly specify domain existence)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] The purpose of an existence/validity check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP result set   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Domain Existence Check and Erroneous Abstract   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain ExistenceCheck   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting (was: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Revised otis-adsp-03 draft   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Update: otis-dkim-adsp-04   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] bot-nets   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] bot-net concern explained   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down, film at 11 (was: bot-net concern explained)   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] ADSP takes DNS down,film at 11   Douglas Otis
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA...   Powers, Jot
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA..   SM
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Section 3.1 - ASP Usage   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Section 3.1 - ASP Usage   SM
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   SM
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   SM
• [ietf-dkim] We need a BCP   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Hector Santos
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Siegel, Ellen
• [ietf-dkim] use cases for wildcard policy assertions   Siegel, Ellen
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Siegel, Ellen
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Siegel, Ellen
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: clarification to A.4 on third party senders   Siegel, Ellen
• [ietf-dkim] use cases for wildcard policy assertions   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] use cases for wildcard policy assertions   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] A funny thing happened at RSA..   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] Documenting *why* the horse is dead   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] Not an issue: multiple From headers   Roland Turner
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Section 3.1 - ASP Usage   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] end-users vs filtering engines   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1573: Modify ADSP Lookup Procedure   Wietse Venema
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Mike.Markley at bankofamerica.com
• [ietf-dkim] Thoughts on parent domain lookup (was Re: subdomain strawpoll)   Mike.Markley at bankofamerica.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please? (was RE: Are lookalike domains like parent domains?)   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please?   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   robert at barclayfamily.com
• [ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Section 3.1 - ASP Usage   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Why only exact domains matter   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Fwd: Re: domain existence check   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Consensus check: Domain Existence Check   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] Discussion of Consensuscheck: Domain Existence Check   Bill.Oxley at cox.com
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] protecting domains that don't exist   ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are subdomains like parent domains?   Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com
• [ietf-dkim] Are lookalike domains like parent domains?   Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1520] [Comment] limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1522] [Comment] Discussion of query traffic overhead   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1523] [Comment] Service Model summary   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1524] [Comment] Signature semantics   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1525] [Comment] Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1526] [Comment] SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1527] [Comment] SSP threats analysis needed   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1528] [Comment] false negatives and false positives   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1530] [Comment] replace use of term "suspicious"   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1529] [Comment] Change "originator" to "author"   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1531] [Comment] "does not exist"   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1532] [Comment] revise list labeling   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1533] [Comment] strict vs. integrated   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1534] [Comment] Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1536] [Comment] definition of action terms   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1537] [Comment] Reputation is out of scope or define it   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1538] [Comment] review and repair of normative vocabulary usage   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1540] [Comment] deprecate t=testing   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1541] [Comment] Do we need SSP record for DKIM=unknown?   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1542] [Comment] SSP Restrictive Policies Recommendation for an RFC 4871 update   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1544] [Comment] SSP version numbers   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1545] [Comment] signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1546] [Comment] Discardable inappropriately specifies possible verifier action   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1548] [Comment] Policies Required to close security threats   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1549] [Comment] Security Threats are [not] well defined   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1550] [Comment] Rename SSP to ASP   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1551] [Comment] NEW ISSUE: SSP-02: Policy Scope   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1552] [Comment] Security Threat: Unexpected Third Party Senders   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com
• [ietf-dkim] [psg.com #1572] [Comment] protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree   rt+dkim at rt.psg.com

Last message date: Sun Jun 29 08:42:53 PDT 2008
Archived on: Sun Jun 29 08:43:03 PDT 2008

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