Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id FAA08955; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 05:41:30 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 05:41:29 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id FAA08948; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 05:41:26 -0400
Received: from dale.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <16210-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 11:41:04 +0200
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA00661;
          Thu, 8 Jun 1995 11:40:58 +0200
Message-Id: <199506080940.LAA00661@dale.uninett.no>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: RFC 821 problem list
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Jun 1995 10:59:51 EDT." <gjoQdbW00WBw0DKmRj@andrew.cmu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 11:40:56 +0200
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

Thanks - I missed that.
You're right - the argument in favour of 400 stands.

    harald A