|
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2
2007-02-07 06:52:22
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
...
Fine. A 'for' clause is desirable, but I suppose it always is.
IMHO, if the discussion in RFC 2821 of 'for' clauses and when they should
or should not be included (c.f. sections 4.4, 7.2, and 7.5) is
insufficient, then it should be fixed there and not in 3028bis.
Philip Guenther
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2,
Philip Guenther <=
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Mark E. Mallett
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
- Interaction between redirect and editheader, Alexey Melnikov
- Let's get 3028bis published, Alexey Melnikov
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Mark E. Mallett
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Tim Showalter
- Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov
|
| Previous by Date: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen |
| Next by Date: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov |
| Previous by Thread: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen |
| Next by Thread: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov |
| Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|