I agree that much of Tony Hansen's message appears to be unrelated to
the RFC-XXXX discussions we have been having.
%> I think it would be a shame if mail on the Internet weren't as capable as
%> mail between SVr4ES systems, and weren't as capable as mail on at least one
%> commercial mail system. It would also be a shame if the modifications being
%> proposed for the Internet weren't at least somewhat compatible with SVr4ES
%> mail.
%
%I'm not going to address this since I don't know enough about AT&T mail, and
%I was not able to learn enough from your message to be sure. I will say
%that I saw nothing immediately obvious in AT&T mail that would preclude
%interoperability with RFC-XXXX.
I think it would be a shame if ATT SVr4 Mail (and PRIME, et al) were
not aligned with RFC-XXXX after it is completed and adopted. We sure
don't need Yet Another Vendor Doing Its Own Thing, though I must admit
that YAVDIOT has in interesting sort of non-pronoucable rhyme to it.
Do I correctly detect a subliminal suggestion that we adopt the
unpublished (copyrighted?) SVr4 specifications in place of RFC-XXXX?
Is this just a more genteel proposal (like the PRIME proposal) to
declare current systems broken, in favor of something that a vendor
has done unilaterally?
In short, what is the point? ..... Cheers...\Stef