Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13533; Sun, 4 May 1997 13:57:24 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sun, 4 May 1997 13:53:45 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13354; Sun, 4 May 1997 13:53:42 -0400 Received: from info.dsv.su.se (info.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.221]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA13342; Sun, 4 May 1997 13:53:35 -0400 Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by info.dsv.su.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA26689; Sun, 4 May 1997 19:49:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199705021308.GAA20053@usr09.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:39:25 +0100 To: "Michael Quinlan" , From: Jacob Palme Subject: Re: 822-bis should define useful terminology At 06:56 -0600 97-05-02, Michael Quinlan wrote: > Does introducing an acronym really improve anything? Yes it does. If someone says "this software is designed according to Internet Message Standards" you do not know if he is talking about SMTP, RFC822, MIME, ESMTP or whatever (there are lots of Internet Message Standards!). But If someone says "this software is designed according to IMSF" or whatever acronym we choose, then we know that the software claims to be designed according to 822-bis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme