Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?
2007-10-15 16:47:30
John,
Is there a reason for including obsolete definitions for General-
address-literal? The 2821bis declares dcontent only defined in RFC2822?
-Doug
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, (continued)
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, David F. Skoll
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Jeff Macdonald
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Bill McQuillan
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, John C Klensin
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Hector Santos
- Bounce address (was: email-arch: bounce vs... return?), Frank Ellermann
- Re: Bounce address, Hector Santos
- Re: Bounce address, Frank Ellermann
- Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?,
Douglas Otis <=
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, John C Klensin
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, Douglas Otis
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, Peter J. Holzer
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Dave Crocker
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: email-arch: bounce vs... return?, Dave Crocker
|
|
|