Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
This really underscores the difference between making changes that "fix"
RFC2822, versus adding the (new) the goal of compatibility with other
messaging standards.
The former is required for the current exercise. But why is the latter?
Rather than impeding the 822 update, it would probably be more useful to
write a document which tersely describes compatibility problems between
822 and usefor and how to generate messages that stay within the common
subset.
Yup.
It would have been great to have the similar messaging environments use the
same format standards, but that didn't happen.
The fact that they remain similar does not change the fact that this is really
a gatewaying task that needs its own gateway mapping specification, just as
was done for x.400.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net