Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 10:36 AM -0700 3/26/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Oh, I was confused. I think spending time on bounce formats is a
bigger waste of time than "internationalizing" error messages from
programs. In practice, computer error messages are always opaque
cybercrud to everyone except the priesthood. "ABEND 12345" may be a
I would take this as a *reason* to standardize them. Given that they
are getting even more confusing. The point isn't to standardize them
for humans--but for computers.
What's wrong with these?
3461 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for
Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs). K. Moore. January 2003.
(Format: TXT=76076 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1891) (Status: DRAFT
STANDARD)
3462 The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail
System Administrative Messages. G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format:
TXT=12186 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1892) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
3463 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes. G. Vaudreuil. January 2003.
(Format: TXT=31832 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1893) (Status: DRAFT
STANDARD)
3464 An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications.
K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil. January 2003. (Format: TXT=83060 bytes)
(Obsoletes RFC1894) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH FORELAND TO SELSEY BILL: EAST TO NORTHEAST 3 OR 4 LOCALLY 5. HAZY WITH
MIST PATCHES, AND A RISK OF FOG PATCHES. MODERATE OR POOR WITH A RISK OF FOG
PATCHES. SLIGHT.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg