Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return


Tony Hansen wrote:

I am considering this issue to be closed with no change.


IMO that still needs an informative reference to RFC 3834,
otherwise implementors might think that MUST means "maybe,
less important if it's for calendar software used as MUA."

Frank

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Section 4.4 - return-path, SM RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, John C Klensin Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, John C Klensin Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, John C Klensin Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Hector Santos Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Tony Hansen Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4, Frank Ellermann <=

Re: Recap: Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 22: Requiring removal of extra return-path headers in 4.4