Re: Virtual last call on "bounce"

ietf-smtp

2005-09-11 08:07:56


On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:


Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

c) use it to describe reject (5xx) only, as it was in 821


That's not the case (I'm a bit pissed that Hector apparently
ignored _all_ articles about this issue in a separate thread)


Ack.  I must have been confused between 821 and 2821 myself.  Sorry.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Virtual last call on "bounce", John C Klensin Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Hector Santos 2822bis (was: Virtual last call on "bounce"), Frank Ellermann Re: 2822bis (was: Virtual last call on "bounce"), John C Klensin Re: 2822bis, Frank Ellermann Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Alex van den Bogaerdt Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Frank Ellermann Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Alex van den Bogaerdt <= Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Hector Santos Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Dave Crocker Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Hector Santos Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", John C Klensin Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Tony Finch

Previous by Date:	Re: "More-stuff" in Received fields, Frank Ellermann
Next by Date:	Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Dave Crocker
Previous by Thread:	Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Frank Ellermann
Next by Thread:	Re: Virtual last call on "bounce", Hector Santos
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]