ietf-smtp  

Messages by Date

• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John C Klensin
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Hector Santos
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/17 Re: IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts (was: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt) Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John C Klensin
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Tony Finch
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John C Klensin
• 2008/04/17 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Tony Finch
• 2008/04/17 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Paul Smith
• 2008/04/16 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Henning Schulzrinne
• 2008/04/16 Re: Block IPv6-only at the border Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/16 Re: Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt) John C Klensin
• 2008/04/16 Re: Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt) Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John C Klensin
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Willie Gillespie
• 2008/04/16 Block IPv6-only at the border (was: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt) Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/16 IPv4 / IPv6 interaction John Leslie
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John Leslie
• 2008/04/16 IPv6 addresses and IPv4 hosts (was: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt) John C Klensin
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Tony Finch
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt ned+ietf-smtp
• 2008/04/16 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Tony Finch
• 2008/04/15 Re: RFC2821bis-10 S5.1 Revision: "Unusable" MXs Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Hector Santos
• 2008/04/15 RFC2821bis-10 S5.1 Revision: "Unusable" MXs Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• 2008/04/15 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Douglas Otis
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt John Leslie
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Keith Moore
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Hector Santos
• 2008/04/15 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Lisa Dusseault
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt SM
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt SM
• 2008/04/15 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Hector Santos
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/15 Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt Tony Hansen
• 2008/04/15 Re: Requiring PTR Peter Bowyer
• 2008/04/15 Re: Requiring PTR Hector Santos
• 2008/04/14 Re: Requiring PTR Carl S. Gutekunst
• 2008/04/14 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Keith Moore
• 2008/04/14 Re: Requiring PTR Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/14 Re: Requiring PTR Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/14 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/14 Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue Tony Hansen
• 2008/04/14 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/14 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission ned+ietf-smtp
• 2008/04/14 Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? Tony Finch
• 2008/04/14 Re: Requiring PTR Hector Santos
• 2008/04/13 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Hector Santos
• 2008/04/13 Re: Requiring PTR Hector Santos
• 2008/04/13 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/12 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission John C Klensin
• 2008/04/12 Re: Requiring PTR Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/12 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/12 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• 2008/04/12 Re: RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission John C Klensin
• 2008/04/12 Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/12 Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? John Leslie
• 2008/04/12 RFC2821bis-09: Lines and Submission Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• 2008/04/12 Re: Requiring PTR Sabahattin Gucukoglu
• 2008/04/12 Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/12 Re: Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? SM
• 2008/04/12 Re: Requiring PTR Carl S. Gutekunst
• 2008/04/12 Re: Requiring PTR SM
• 2008/04/12 Do domains in SMTP have to exist ? John Levine
• 2008/04/12 Requiring PTR Hector Santos
• 2008/04/11 Re: Mixed Return Codes Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/11 RE: Mixed Return Codes MH Michael Hammer (5304)
• 2008/04/11 Re: Mixed Return Codes - CORECTION Hector Santos
• 2008/04/11 Mixed Return Codes Hector Santos
• 2008/04/11 SMTP Service Advertisement John Leslie
• 2008/04/11 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/10 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/09 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/09 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/09 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/09 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/08 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Russ Allbery
• 2008/04/08 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/08 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Pete Resnick
• 2008/04/08 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Douglas Otis
• 2008/04/08 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) John C Klensin
• 2008/04/08 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/08 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Hector Santos
• 2008/04/08 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Michael Storz
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Russ Allbery
• 2008/04/07 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Douglas Otis
• 2008/04/07 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Glenn Anderson
• 2008/04/07 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Mark Andrews
• 2008/04/07 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/07 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Pete Resnick
• 2008/04/07 Re: Implicit MX decisions John C Klensin
• 2008/04/07 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/07 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/07 Re: Implicit MX decisions Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? ned+ietf-smtp
• 2008/04/07 Lost DSNs (was: current usage of AAAA implicit MX?) Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/07 What is the history of 2821 and implict MX? Pete Resnick
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/07 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/07 Re: IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Alessandro Vesely
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Hector Santos
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Michael Storz
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Michael Storz
• 2008/04/07 Re: deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/07 deprecate implicit MX even for IPv4 Michael Storz
• 2008/04/07 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: Implicit MX decisions Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/06 IPV6: Where are we? (SMTP) Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/06 Re: History of fallback to A Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Michael Storz
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/06 IPV6 Implementations Reports Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Hector Santos
• 2008/04/06 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Russ Allbery
• 2008/04/05 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/05 Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6 Mark Andrews
• 2008/04/05 Implicit MX decisions John C Klensin
• 2008/04/05 Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6 Alex van den Bogaerdt
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Russ Allbery
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change Bill McQuillan
• 2008/04/05 Re: Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6 Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/05 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Tony Finch
• 2008/04/05 How does SMTP IPv4 and IPv6 work together Hector Santos
• 2008/04/05 Why implicit MX is a bad idea for IPv6 Alex van den Bogaerdt
• 2008/04/05 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Michael Storz
• 2008/04/05 Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change John C Klensin
• 2008/04/05 Implicit MXs - asking the question more clearly (was: Re: Scope Creep) John C Klensin
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? John Levine
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Mark Andrews
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Robert A. Rosenberg
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Michael Storz
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? John C Klensin
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know SM
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Peter J. Holzer
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Arnt Gulbrandsen
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Michael Storz
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Alex van den Bogaerdt
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Bill McQuillan
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Paul Hoffman
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know John Levine
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/04 Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Willie Gillespie
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Tony Hansen
• 2008/04/04 There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know Michael Storz
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Tony Hansen
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Dave Crocker
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Hector Santos
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Michael Storz
• 2008/04/04 Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06 Frank Ellermann
• 2008/04/04 Re: current usage of AAAA implicit MX? Paul Smith
• 2008/04/03 Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06 Keith Moore
• 2008/04/03 Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06 Peter J. Holzer

• Earlier messages
• Later messages