Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA14770; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:19:46 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:17:02 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA14701; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:17:00 -0500
Received: from muenster.westfalen.de (root@muenster.westfalen.de [193.174.5.2]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id TAA14694; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:16:37 -0500
Received: from khms.westfalen.de by muenster.westfalen.de
	via rsmtp with bsmtp
	id <m0vh2V2-000GyiC@muenster.westfalen.de>
	for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:01:08 +0100 (MET)
	(Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1996-Nov-13)
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.11 R/C435);
	  06 Jan 1997 00:03:48 +0100
Date: 05 Jan 1997 23:35:00 +0100
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <6OIn8xOUcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6O8xDmOjcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
Subject: Re: blank line as head/body separator
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.11 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Crispin)  wrote on 03.01.97 in <MailManager.852319850.490.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>:

[...]

> The RFC was written by a committee.  Enough said.

[...]

I guess I still have a problem with that explanation. Essentially, it says  
that interpretation of a RFC is defined by the people who were there, and  
can't be found from the document.

Which leads to the question why we have the RFC at all.

However, I'm not quite sure how important this really is, as long as we  
make very sure that we do it better for 822bis.


MfG Kai