Russ Allbery writes:
Bruce Lilly <blilly(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net> writes:
Now, if an RFC 2822 successor were to repudiate those requirements
spelled out in RFC 1036, that would be fine.
RFC 1036 is not a standards track document and therefore should not
need to be explicitly repudiated by another document.
I think this is a bit too legalistic. RFC 1036 is the best available
document for a widely used and well-known system, which gives it some
standing in practice, and which makes a textual repudiation reasonable
(even if not strictly necessary).
IMO it would be better for an RFC 1036 successor to repudiate this, but
I've heard they're waiting to get RFC number 10036, so that won't
happen soon.
Arnt