Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call

ietf-smtp

2008-05-19 15:57:25




ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

Really, now that I go and look the list of examples of RFCs doing this sort
of thing is pretty darned long.


OK.  Those certainly are concrete exemplars to work from.  Thanks.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: public key BATV isn't useful, (continued) Re: public key BATV isn't useful, Dave Crocker Re: public key BATV isn't useful, Paul Smith Re: public key BATV isn't useful, Paul Smith Re: public key BATV isn't useful, Douglas Otis Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Alessandro Vesely Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, John Levine Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Frank Ellermann Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, ned+ietf-smtp Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Dave Crocker Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, ned+ietf-smtp Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Dave Crocker <= Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, John Levine Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Tony Hansen Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Alessandro Vesely Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, SM Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, ned+ietf-smtp Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Paul Smith Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, mouss Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, Paul Smith Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?, Alessandro Vesely Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?, ned+ietf-smtp

Previous by Date:	Re: private key BATV is useful, John R Levine
Next by Date:	Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, John Levine
Previous by Thread:	Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, ned+ietf-smtp
Next by Thread:	Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call, John Levine
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]