Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id BAA00258; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:38:49 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:37:03 -0500
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id BAA00151; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 01:36:52 -0500
Received: from oslo9.or.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <17551-0@domen.uninett.no>; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:35:50 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 
          by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05920;
          Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:40 +0100
Message-Id: <199601222300.AAA05920@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Harmonizing format of Message-ID in news and e-mail
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:45:10 +0100." <Pine.SUN.3.91.960118094147.7470B-100000@ester.dsv.su.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5916.822351639.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:00:39 +0100
Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

Jacob,
the RFC 1327 (MIXER) message-ID format regularly needs quoting, because
of the embedded O/R name in it.
Dos the gain justify the pain?

         Harald A