Re: [COSE] COSE_Key related text for COSE-HPKERe: [COSE] COSE_Key related text for COSE-HPKE
Laurence Lundblade
2023-05-14
cose
None
/arch/msg/cose/obPYp72T1xl289QvFGK2vEDMCMI/
3309034
2064400
Re: [rfc-i] rfcNNNNN.jsonRe: [rfc-i] rfcNNNNN.json
Sandy Ginoza
2021-04-24
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/MMhfvk4Q775b-LsZlfV4T2Au6Lc/
3026585
1950789
Re: [rfc-i] rfcNNNNN.jsonRe: [rfc-i] rfcNNNNN.json
Carsten Bormann
2021-04-23
rfc-interest
None
/arch/msg/rfc-interest/OFh4OoQSyS5sR6xG1gsdSZUtC2c/
3026541
1950789
Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities.Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities.
Tim Hollebeek
2020-07-08
spasm
None
/arch/msg/spasm/zLMYjjQuwlvTPGq2lPyDOpnVEXQ/
2900994
1901208
Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities. (fwd) Carsten Bormann: Re: [Anima] on certification authorities.Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities. (fwd) Carsten Bormann: Re: [Anima] on certification authorities.
Michael Richardson
2020-06-28
spasm
None
/arch/msg/spasm/jNxnpX06M-QWAs4iWQtJjVncuPA/
2896488
1901359
Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities.Re: [lamps] [Anima] on certification authorities.
Erik Andersen
2020-06-28
spasm
None
/arch/msg/spasm/0MkJZ5N2rJP2VvndRQWhxfHPa-E/
2896446
1901208
Re: [Anima] [lamps] on certification authorities.Re: [Anima] [lamps] on certification authorities.
Carsten Bormann
2020-06-27
anima
None
/arch/msg/anima/q2aoS3ejBU206k68IUxHaVe-FaM/
2896370
1900831
[DNSOP] Review of draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt[DNSOP] Review of draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt
Mukund Sivaraman
2018-10-29
dnsop
None
/arch/msg/dnsop/W0NDvkkpwDU1gYenK5DAtDMEwDk/
2651952
1812747
[Anima] draft minutes from bootstrap design team[Anima] draft minutes from bootstrap design team
Michael Richardson
2017-08-11
anima
None
/arch/msg/anima/LSUojUohWDBHOwDNDnyNLTs4Zz8/
2433516
1721545
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-06-11
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/U7rZ9sCsMULXFlnhTz4E92YqrMA/
820553
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Mike Jones
2013-06-11
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/1ovyDkqz1zKwy0GpoSgckrtrQeU/
820530
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Axel.Nennker
2013-06-07
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/JwONsry2baqRyO7cCDONrJOLiDA/
820500
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Nat Sakimura
2013-06-06
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/XYVZ55O4ozvwmcNWsLmlWRfQG-k/
820495
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Dick Hardt
2013-06-06
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/5i2a1Tux05vGEhiJpSgMbENfYgY/
820494
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Nat Sakimura
2013-06-06
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/R7xeKxoT1x9C2CdiCRms6BKsDNE/
820493
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-06-05
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/2JzXN3v_xndqSx1s49izpFDC_JU/
820492
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Nat Sakimura
2013-06-05
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/gEz9R8Q4S8G5js3GLMknHHLSrVw/
820490
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-06-04
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/euXqJJYSzPZ3mx4tME1LMmlxQWU/
820488
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Brian Campbell
2013-05-31
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/jErgbJlhzKeFaafu2rDmFmxYeWM/
820483
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/ydYdzK7fQBwmXPKG1k6YSmkAJxg/
820471
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Dick Hardt
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/Gr8fatDz0QFAgbP3KhwS5p8oQbU/
820470
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Jim Schaad
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/TI7B3TFKm73k6KKR9n4-5VVMALg/
820469
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
John Bradley
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/h3_SfDqrGMYtgYYxuwkFU0EhGes/
820468
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Nat Sakimura
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/kJjvvCIwa_0pWrsIEMVrGYfauFk/
820467
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Mike Jones
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/dOfhy06qgyn3PB4UxfipvasZn3k/
820465
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/PkH2LfpelrydX1fXBPihz25l6qg/
820462
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Jim Schaad
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/5otlbF1qJXtpz5cGuU6dP9P88u4/
820460
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Mike Jones
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/Aqy5W3Kyf3Fi-wFdJV9opM3ww5c/
820459
1445328
Re: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header fieldRe: [jose] Should we delete the "typ" header field
Richard Barnes
2013-05-30
jose
None
/arch/msg/jose/fFfDimAur-p5SrdvDiDmshcPLb8/
820456
1445328
Re: [spfbis] RFC 4408 to draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-08 differenceRe: [spfbis] RFC 4408 to draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-08 difference
Scott Kitterman
2012-12-15
spfbis
None
/arch/msg/spfbis/F6s2X6nIVnptrVsTMSdECVhuLMc/
1402276
1631776
[spfbis] Comments on RFC 4408[spfbis] Comments on RFC 4408
SM
2012-02-08
spfbis
None
/arch/msg/spfbis/hhOCAcwjEf4yKgr0GGhAOc4GoAQ/
1399576
1631996
Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Scouts, was 8bit downgradesRe: [ietf-dkim] DKIM Scouts, was 8bit downgrades
Hector Santos
2011-05-24
ietf-dkim
None
/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/qmjGx5P9Fp9FRUIqOo-MTiU3rvk/
717928
1405076
Re: [ietf-dkim] A comprehensive DKIM verification specification will not violate protocol layers.Re: [ietf-dkim] A comprehensive DKIM verification specification will not violate protocol layers.
Douglas Otis
2010-11-22
ietf-dkim
None
/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/b2R5Y6bS4iJcBj6CIeutsTr9hds/
716648
1405181
Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-07.txt>(Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed StandardRe: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-07.txt>(Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard
Julien ÉLIE
2010-09-10
ima
None
/arch/msg/ima/QuSs2CUWL1pS3Dp2aRVHr2UK2Dk/
732529
1408904
Re: [vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5Re: [vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5
Meadhbh Hamrick
2010-07-08
vwrap
None
/arch/msg/vwrap/BHiMTQ5j9JlFWV4-dKjNF4egjMw/
1500167
1664309
Re: [vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5Re: [vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5
Robert G. Jakabosky
2010-07-08
vwrap
None
/arch/msg/vwrap/wDS10ds1YmV6ZvHMnpAJntHoqbs/
1500166
1664309
[vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5[vwrap] adding transport and capability auth types, removing MD5
Meadhbh Hamrick
2010-07-07
vwrap
None
/arch/msg/vwrap/KYm5DQLZ_PTAmjwU0SMJKEyVHKk/
1500164
1664309
[rfc-dist] RFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification[rfc-dist] RFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification
rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
2010-01-25
rfc-dist
None
/arch/msg/rfc-dist/q7p6WTu79Az4QZrBgKCkmIzerSw/
2272572
1570552
[smime] RFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification[smime] RFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification
rfc-editor
2010-01-25
smime
None
/arch/msg/smime/_b2cJeqsg7gInjL-JMXBeJDPv7E/
1387238
1622704
RFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message SpecificationRFC 5751 on Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification
rfc-editor
2010-01-25
ietf-announce
None
/arch/msg/ietf-announce/MYWaoTvoLTMskDw4BWDgFoSmVoM/
669427
1371535