|
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2
2007-02-07 07:00:52
Philip Guenther wrote:
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.
Agreed. IMHO, this is not 3028bis business.
| <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
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Mark E. Mallett
|
| Previous by Date: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther |
| Next by Date: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Alexey Melnikov |
| Previous by Thread: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Philip Guenther |
| Next by Thread: |
Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2, Arnt Gulbrandsen |
| Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|