Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA23430; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 06:27:47 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 20 Oct 1995 06:26:30 -0400 Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA23394; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 06:26:28 -0400 From: Message-Id: <199510201026.GAA23394@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <05366-0@domen.uninett.no>; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:23:30 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95 To: Roger Fajman cc: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: About bounce messages..... In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:57:42 EDT." <199510192059.QAA03772@CS.UTK.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:23:28 +0100 Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no The output of DRUMS will be based only on Standards-level material. Since NOTARY is Proposed, we can't use it. I think we can get away with a reference like ".....when possible, standard message formats for non-delivery notifications should be used, for instance those being progressed as NOTARY on the standards track". Harald A