Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis

John,

Just to clarify my point-of-view, I don't see the recent spam 
discussions as resulting in significant new text in RFC5231bis. What I 
imagine for RFC5321bis is at most some very slight tweaking of the 
wording.    As far as I can tell it was just a coincidence that the 
issue with the IETF MTA cropped up at about the same time you started to 
ask about 5321bis.
Keith


_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp