gmane.ietf.mxcomp archive

373 archived articles, newest first (page 4 of 4). Latest articles →

Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 21:33:34 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5735
HELO and MAIL FROM are separate identities; reputation on a per-domain basis instead of per-IP (was: SPF PASS)
Thu, 26 May 2005 21:31:27 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5734
Re: SPF and HELO
Thu, 26 May 2005 21:19:22 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5733
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 15:13:39 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5732
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 15:06:28 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5731
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 15:04:51 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5730
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:03:45 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5729
Re: SPF and HELO
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:59:49 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5728
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 19:53:32 +0100
Richard Clayton <[email protected]> • #5727
RE: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 18:56:23 GMT
Mark <[email protected]> • #5726
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:46:33 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5725
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:51:27 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5724
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
26 May 2005 14:56:13 -0400
"John L" <[email protected]> • #5723
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed,please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:46:11 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5722
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]> • #5721
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:40:26 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5720
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:27:54 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5719
RE: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 18:36:58 GMT
Mark <[email protected]> • #5718
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:36:44 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5717
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 20:30:34 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5716
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
26 May 2005 14:28:04 -0400
"John L" <[email protected]> • #5715
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:59:33 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5714
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:03:54 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5713
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:03:45 -0400
Terry Fielder <[email protected]> • #5712
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:55:26 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5711
Addressing Backward Compatibility [was Re: SPF PASS]
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:33:32 -0400
"Hector Santos" <[email protected]> • #5710
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:18:12 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5709
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 18:19:44 +0100
Tony Finch <[email protected]> • #5708
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed,please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:13:10 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5707
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
26 May 2005 17:10:42 -0000
John Levine <[email protected]> • #5706
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
26 May 2005 17:08:38 -0000
John Levine <[email protected]> • #5705
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 12:03:37 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5704
Re: SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 09:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]> • #5703
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 17:41:20 +0100
Richard Clayton <[email protected]> • #5702
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 09:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]> • #5701
SPF and HELO, was Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 17:14:17 +0100
Tony Finch <[email protected]> • #5700
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 11:39:59 -0400
Carl Hutzler <[email protected]> • #5699
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 08:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]> • #5698
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed,please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 10:47:58 -0400
Carl Hutzler <[email protected]> • #5697
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 10:43:26 -0400
Andrew Newton <[email protected]> • #5696
RE: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed,please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:02:05 GMT
Mark <[email protected]> • #5695
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 15:39:31 +0200
Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email protected]> • #5694
RE: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:15:56 GMT
Mark <[email protected]> • #5693
RE: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http: //www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 07:50:54 -0500
"Sauer, Damon" <[email protected]> • #5692
Re: SPF PASS
Thu, 26 May 2005 14:13:45 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5691
RE: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundam entally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 07:47:44 -0400
"Sukhenko, Alex" <[email protected]> • #5690
Re: SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 07:20:37 -0400
Carl Hutzler <[email protected]> • #5689
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 07:11:54 -0400
Carl Hutzler <[email protected]> • #5688
SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")
Thu, 26 May 2005 13:06:09 +0200
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5687
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Wed, 25 May 2005 20:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]> • #5686
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http: //www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
26 May 2005 02:15:14 -0000
John Levine <[email protected]> • #5685
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Wed, 25 May 2005 20:46:56 -0500
wayne <[email protected]> • #5684
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Wed, 25 May 2005 21:24:20 -0400
Carl Hutzler <[email protected]> • #5683
Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Thu, 26 May 2005 03:02:48 +0200
Julian Mehnle <[email protected]> • #5682
"If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"
Wed, 25 May 2005 16:51:13 -0700
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5681
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01.txt
Fri, 20 May 2005 13:07:32 -0700
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5680
Re: MARID back from the grave?
Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:12:36 +0100
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email protected]> • #5679
Re: MARID back from the grave?
Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:58:26 +0900
Dave Crocker <[email protected]> • #5678
Re: MARID back from the grave?
Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:55:07 +0900
Dave Crocker <[email protected]> • #5677
Re: MARID back from the grave?
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:17:46 +0100
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email protected]> • #5676
MARID back from the grave?
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:26:45 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> • #5675
Re: So here it is one year later...
Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:33:52 -0800
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5674
Re: So here it is one year later...
Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:26:06 -0500
"Hector Santos" <[email protected]> • #5673
Re: So here it is one year later...
Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:07:48 +0100
Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> • #5672
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:04:12 -0800
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5671
Re: Using DK/IIM [was: Re: So here it is one year later...]
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:35:08 -0800
Jim Fenton <[email protected]> • #5670
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:11:48 -0800
[email protected] • #5669
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:42:28 -0500
"Hector Santos" <[email protected]> • #5668
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:59:54 -0800
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5667
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:46:26 -0800
Douglas Otis <[email protected]> • #5666
Using DK/IIM [was: Re: So here it is one year later...]
Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:22:31 -0500
"Hector Santos" <[email protected]> • #5665
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:57:00 -0800
Jim Fenton <[email protected]> • #5664
Re: So here it is one year later...
Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:03:45 -0500
"Hector Santos" <[email protected]> • #5663
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.