Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA09177; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 07:17:09 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Thu, 14 Mar 1996 07:15:14 -0500 Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA09079; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 07:15:10 -0500 From: Message-Id: <199603141215.HAA09079@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <15084-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:14:46 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: Mark Crispin Cc: John Gardiner Myers , drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:30:23 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: application/pgp; format=mime; x-action=signclear; x-originator=175E0139 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:14:44 +0100 Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii A spec that comes before the IESG that does not have one common syntax for addresses, no matter whether it is in the ESMTP envelope or the RFC-822bis header, will not pass the IESG on my term. If *VERY* powerful arguments can be brought to bear, a quoting convention for embedding 822bis-allowed addresses in 821 MAY be tolerable. But I will *NOT* allow this stupidity to be repeated. We made this mistake in 821/822, and we paid for it. NEVER AGAIN! Harald T. Alvestrand, with his IESG hat on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQBVAgUBMUgNsjPwVTwXXgE5AQF+SQH/XcUwWXh2sLXQ+DyqbJdAJRiVzG2iJmKm Ar9GGFGhjh7ywhFHWWlJu4r2+pZ30U3RqDjFR80Qz8HP1lzyj6M7+w== =4seQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----