Re: The "such responses" extension sentence


John C Klensin wrote:

My instinct at the moment (i.e., I reserve the right to
change my mind) is that dropping it would be better.


+1 following Derek's argument.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821 (was: rfc2821bis-07), (continued) MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821 (was: rfc2821bis-07), Frank Ellermann Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821 (was: rfc2821bis-07), John C Klensin Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, Alessandro Vesely Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, SM Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, Alessandro Vesely Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, John C Klensin Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, ned+ietf-smtp Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, Derek J. Balling The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821), John C Klensin Re: The "such responses" extension sentence, Frank Ellermann <= Re: The "such responses" extension sentence, Dave Crocker Re: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821), SM Re: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821), Mark Martinec RE: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821), Trevor Paquette Re: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821), John Leslie Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, Alessandro Vesely Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821, SM Re: rfc2821bis-07, ned+ietf-smtp Re: rfc2821bis-07, SM Re: rfc2821bis-07, John C Klensin