Re: 3028bis, section 4.2, paragraph 2

Philip Guenther writes:
> 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.
I could argue that one either way... so let's just use the text you 
proposed earlier today.
Arnt