Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA00380; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:10:18 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:09:28 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA29917; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:09:24 -0400
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com (jekyll.piermont.com [206.1.51.15]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA29853; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:09:01 -0400
Received: from [[UNIX: localhost]] ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25938; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:08:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610242008.QAA25938@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host [[UNIX: localhost]] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>
cc: Directed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 1996 11:28:22 PDT."
             <Pine.SOL.3.95.961024111406.7731D-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:08:23 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>


Chris Newman writes:
> Do we have concensus that IPv6 literals in email should use the
> [abcd::1234] style notation?

My problems with this:

1) No easy way to send mail from an IPv4 host to such an address.
2) Does break some implementations.

However, I'm not exactly saying I object, either.

Perry