Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA16746; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:51:34 -0400
Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:49:33 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA16532; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 18:49:31 -0400
Received: from trhm8.or.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <02534-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 23:49:02 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA25501;
          Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:36:31 +0100
Message-Id: <199510241336.OAA25501@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Jacob Palme DSV-SU/KTH <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: About bounce messages.....
In-reply-to: Your message of "23 Oct 1995 17:44:36 +0100." <1163336*jpalme@su-kom.dsv.su.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25498.814541791.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:36:31 +0100
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

See previous discussion about the standards track.
If we mandate use of NOTARY, this new doc comes in at Proposed.
If we recommend use of NOTARY, that is not a change to the specified
protocol.

              Harald A