Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change


Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:

I get leery any time the specs assume that the guy running the 
mail server and the guy running the DNS server are on speaking
terms.


No matter what 2821bis will say, when IPv6 enters the picture
they need to talk.  The mail guy in an IPvX network will want
mail from non-IPvX networks.

 Frank

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, (continued) Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Frank Ellermann Message not available Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, John R Levine Message not available Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Dave Crocker dual-stack IP transition is not specific to SMTP, Dave Crocker Re: dual-stack IP transition is not specific to SMTP, Keith Moore Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, John C Klensin Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Carl S. Gutekunst Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, John C Klensin Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Carl S. Gutekunst Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Mark Andrews Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Frank Ellermann <= Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, ned+ietf-smtp Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Hector Santos Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Alex van den Bogaerdt Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Robert A. Rosenberg Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, Sabahattin Gucukoglu Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change, John Levine Re: Minor isn't. It's a pardigm change, John C Klensin Paradigm change?, John Leslie Re: Minor isn't. It's a pardigm change, SM Re: Minor isn't. It's a pardigm change, Paul Smith