1+ 05/25 Ramamurthy Kumar   Add to mailing list<<Please add kumar@netmanage.
   2+ 05/29 Keith Moore        getting started<<I guess we have enough people o
   3+ 05/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: getting started<<Keith Moore writes: > So no
   4+ 05/29 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> Essentially, we currently
   5+ 05/30 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<One feature that I think ne
   6+ 05/30 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: getting started<<Eric, > All in all this bus
   7+ 05/30 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Tue, 30 May 1995 15:42:1
   8+ 05/30 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> One feature that I think 
   9+ 05/30 Ed Levinson        Re: getting started<<Eric, Your note to the drum
  10+ 05/31 Keith Moore        starting points<<Here are a couple of documents 
  11+ 05/31 John Gardiner Mye  RFC 821 problem list<<The definition of "final d
  12+ 05/31 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<John Gardiner Myers wr
  13+ 05/31 John Gardiner Mye  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<"Perry E. Metzger" <pe
  14+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: RFC 821 problem list<<> > The 522 reply code
  15+ 05/31 Dave Barr          mail name rules<<In message <199505301342.PAA061
  16+ 05/31 Mark Crispin       re: RFC 821 problem list<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 12
  17+ 05/31 Dave Barr          Re: getting started<<>Our first order of busines
  18+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: mail name rules<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 14:20:4
  19+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 821 problem list<<I am confused. What is
  20+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 14:49:5
  21+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> >Our first order of busin
  22+ 05/31 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: getting started<<Eric Thomas writes: > On We
  23+ 05/31 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: getting started<<Keith Moore writes: > > 3. 
  24+ 05/31 John Gardiner Mye  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<Robert Elz <kre@munnar
  25+ 05/31 Dave Barr          Re: getting started<<In message <199505311936.PA
  26+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: getting started<<Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:3
  27+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 15:48:0
  28+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> >1. When a MTA needs to g
  29+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 15:55:2
  30+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 821 problem list<<Date: Wed, 31 May 1995
  31+ 05/31 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: getting started<<Eric Thomas writes: > On We
  32+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 16:08:1
  33+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 16:14:0
  34+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> Along the same lines, and
  35+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> Keith Moore writes: > > >
  36+ 05/31 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: getting started<<Eric Thomas writes: > On We
  37+ 05/31 Dave Barr          Re: getting started<<In message <199505312010.QA
  38+ 05/31 Keith Moore        Re: RFC 821 problem list<<> > I much prefer to b
  39+ 05/31 Michael D'Errico   Re: RFC 821 problem list<<> A method to cause th
  40+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 821 problem list<<Date: Wed, 31 May 1995
  41+ 05/31 "Donald E. Eastla  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<It seems to me that fo
  42+ 05/31 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Wed, 31 May 1995 16:34:4
  44+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: getting started<<Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 22:4
  45+ 06/01 Eric Thomas        Re: getting started<<On Thu, 01 Jun 1995 07:34:2
  46+ 06/01 Robert Elz         Re: getting started<<Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 01:23
  47+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> You have no idea how much
  48+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       here's another one for the list<<I want explicit
  49+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       end-of-message indication in SMTP<<There is an i
  50+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       changes<<I don't know if this is permitted by th
  51+ 06/01 Juan Altmayer Piz  Re: RFC 821 problem list
  53+ 06/01 Jim Conklin        Re: getting started<<At 2:03 AM 6/1/95 -0400, Ke
  54+ 06/01 Jim Conklin        Re: RFC 821 problem list<<At 2:28 PM 6/1/95 +020
  55+ 06/01 Marshall Rose      Re: RFC 821 problem list<<yes, this probably sho
  56+ 06/01 John C Klensin     Re: RFC 821 problem list<<>>By the way, what tak
  57+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: end-of-message indication in SMTP<<Mark Cris
  58+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  TURN<<I do have an internet draft out defining a
  59+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       Re: end-of-message indication in SMTP<<On Thu, 1
  60+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  address syntax<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> wri
  61+ 06/01 Michael D'Errico   Re: changes<<> I don't know if this is permitted
  62+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       re: address syntax<<On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 14:47:47 
  63+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       Re: changes<<On Thu, 01 Jun 1995 12:21:46 -0700,
  64+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM>
  65+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: changes<<> > 1) Simplify the syntax, remove 
  66+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       Re: address syntax<<On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:47:47 
  67+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: getting started<<> > In response to your ear
  68+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM>
  69+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CM
  70+ 06/01 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:17:32 
  72+ 06/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: changes<<michael.derrico@software.com (Micha
  73+ 06/01 Michael D'Errico   Re: changes<<> > Since <word> is defined to be e
  74+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: changes<<> This is the basis of my claim tha
  75+ 06/01 "Roger Fajman"     Re: address syntax<<> IPv6 is the big unknown lo
  76+ 06/01 Michael D'Errico   Re: changes<<> > From: "Michael D'Errico"."Techn
  77+ 06/01 Mark Crispin       Re: address syntax<<On Thu, 01 Jun 1995 17:42:14
  78+ 06/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: address syntax<<John, > I saw one specificat
  79+ 06/02 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.
  80+ 06/02 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNE
  81+ 06/04 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:02:
  82+ 06/04 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<John, I think you are 
  83+ 06/04 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: getting started<<Eric, my (hopefully more re
  84+ 06/04 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: getting started<<Eric, typical solutions in 
  85+ 06/04 John Gardiner Mye  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<Harald.T.Alvestrand@un
  86+ 06/05 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:14:27 
  87+ 06/05 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.a
  88+ 06/05 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Sun, 04 Jun 1995 09:35:17
  89+ 06/05 Dave Barr          Re: address syntax<<In message <199506051530.LAA
  90+ 06/05 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu
  91+ 06/05 Dave Barr          Re: address syntax<<In message <ojopX0q00WBwA9xo
  92+ 06/06 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:34:
  93+ 06/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: address syntax<<Since source routes are depr
  94+ 06/05 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.A
  95+ 06/05 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Tue, 06 Jun 1995 06:26:39
  96+ 06/05 Keith Moore        Re: address syntax<<> > > >Could you give a more
  97+ 06/06 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:44:
  98+ 06/06 Robert Elz         821 fix needed<<I'm not sure whether its been no
  99+ 06/05 Perry E. Metzger   handling literals<<I have an idea on the domain 
 100+ 06/06 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Tue, 06 Jun 1995 07:50:21
 101+ 06/06 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:29:
 102+ 06/06 Eric Thomas        Re: address syntax<<On Tue, 06 Jun 1995 10:21:19
 103+ 06/06 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 02:44:
 104+ 06/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: address syntax<<The 822 domain-literal synta
 105+ 06/06 John Gardiner Mye  822 problem list<<Paragrah 4 of 1.1 is no longer
 106+ 06/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: handling literals<<perry@imsi.com (Perry E. 
 107+ 06/06 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: handling literals<<John Gardiner Myers write
 108+ 06/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: handling literals<<"Perry E. Metzger" <perry
 109+ 06/06 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: handling literals<<John Gardiner Myers write
 110+ 06/06 Keith Moore        Re: handling literals<<> John Gardiner Myers wri
 111+ 06/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: handling literals<<"Perry E. Metzger" <perry
 112+ 06/06 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: handling literals<<Keith Moore writes: > Mai
 113+ 06/06 Mark Crispin       re: 822 problem list<<On Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:48:4
 114+ 06/08 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: RFC 821 problem list<<Thanks - I missed that
 115+ 06/29 Keith Moore        items for discussion at IETF Stockholm?<<I need 
 116+ 06/29 John Gardiner Mye  mail relay<<RFC 1123 section 5.2.6 states: > (2)
 117+ 06/29 John Gardiner Mye  Fwd: notification message<<An old mailext messag
 118+ 06/29 John Gardiner Mye  Fwd: 822 AS wording<<An old mailext message that
 119+ 06/29 John Gardiner Mye  Fwd: potential mail loss<<An old message which i
 120+ 07/11 Keith Moore        suggested agenda topics<<Several bugs in 821/822
 121+ 07/12 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: suggested agenda topics<<Keith, - headers: r
 122+ 07/23 Harald.T.Alvestra  Harald's list of DRUMS documents<<Hi, while out 
 123+ 07/23 Harald.T.Alvestra  An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<------- =_
 124+ 07/24 Larry Masinter     Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<I thin
 125+ 07/25 Len Bullard        Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<> > mi
 126+ 07/25 Roy Fielding       Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<I don'
 127+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Differences between messages with the same Messa
 128+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Uses of Message-ID<<Here is a suggestion for a t
 129+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Format of In-Reply-To and References<<These two 
 130+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Message-ID mandatory<<I suggest that the followi
 131+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        "Reply-To"<<RFC 822 writes the following about t
 132+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Ambiguity of the "Newsgroups:" heading field in 
 133+ 07/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11
 134+ 07/26 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<Thanks
 135+ 07/26 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<Larry,
 136+ 07/27 Dave Barr          Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References<<In mes
 137+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        A gatewaying problem<<We have a problem with how
 138+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, E
 139+ 07/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16
 140+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<Harald
 141+ 07/27 Jacob Palme        Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References<<Dave B
 142+ 07/27 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References<<The wa
 143+ 07/27 Larry Masinter     Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<> I ha
 144+ 07/28 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, E
 145+ 07/28 Jacob Palme        Re: An idea for MID and CID URsomethings<<Larry 
 146+ 07/28 Jacob Palme        Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References<<John G
 147+ 07/28 Dave Barr          Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References<<In mes
 148+ 07/28 John Gardiner Mye  Followup-To:<<I'd suggest people read the Intern
 149+ 07/29 Eric Allman        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<My take on this is tha
 150+ 08/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID mandatory<<On Sat, 29 Jul 1995, E
 151+ 08/12 Jacob Palme        Does "References:" form threads?<<By a thread I 
 152+ 08/14 Jim Conklin        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<At 1:24 PM
 153+ 08/15 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-To"<<Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:13:35 
 154+ 08/15 Eric Allman        Re: "Reply-To"<<I have to agree with Robert's lo
 155+ 08/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Eric Allman writes: > I have to 
 156+ 08/15 Eric Allman        Re: "Reply-To"<<I'm not arguing that there are m
 157+ 08/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Eric Allman writes: > I'm not ar
 158+ 08/15 Eric Allman        Re: "Reply-To"<<"My own" mailer (by which I assu
 159+ 08/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Eric Allman writes: > "My own" m
 160+ 08/15 Jacob Palme        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<On Mon, 14
 161+ 08/15 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-To"<<On the discussion of the definij
 162+ 08/15 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<Robert Elz wrote: > Some time ag
 163+ 08/15 Keith Moore        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<> > Jacob,
 164+ 08/15 Jim Conklin        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<At 6:18 PM
 165+ 08/15 Jim Conklin        Re: "Reply-To"<<At 7:18 AM 8/15/95 -0700, Eric A
 166+ 08/15 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> At least as common (much more 
 167+ 08/15 Eric Allman        Re: "Reply-To"<<Yes, that's a good point -- but 
 168+ 08/16 Jim Conklin        Re: "Reply-To" (and lists)<<At 8:14 PM 8/15/95 -
 169+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To" (and lists)<<> I must confess tha
 170+ 08/16 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-To"<<It was never my intention that m
 171+ 08/16 Jacob Palme        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<On Tue, 15
 172+ 08/16 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:13:21 +02
 173+ 08/16 Jim Conklin        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<At 6:25 PM
 174+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> The suggestion to define "Repl
 175+ 08/16 Chris Newman       Re: "Reply-To"<<Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
 176+ 08/16 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:51:50 -04
 177+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> I agree with this sentiment, a
 179+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> 95% of what? Our main mail ser
 180+ 08/16 Chris Newman       Re: "Reply-To"<<Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> w
 181+ 08/16 Jim Conklin        Re: "Reply-To"<<At 6:13 PM 8/16/95 +0200, Jacob 
 182+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> > I disagree with the premise 
 183+ 08/16 Jim Conklin        Re: "Reply-To"<<At 1:51 PM 8/16/95 -0400, Chris 
 184+ 08/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Keith Moore writes: > One reason
 185+ 08/17 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 17:42:04 -04
 186+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> Well, we don't need Authorized
 187+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> You seem to forget that nowada
 188+ 08/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Keith Moore writes: > > Well, we
 189+ 08/17 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:48:40 -04
 190+ 08/16 Dave Barr          Re: "Reply-To"<<IMHO the biggest use of Reply-To
 191+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> Whats the advantage here over 
 192+ 08/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: "Reply-To"<<Keith Moore writes: > > Whats th
 193+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> >I don't see what problem this
 194+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> Keith Moore writes: > > > What
 195+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> IMHO the biggest use of Reply-
 196+ 08/17 Robert Elz         Reply-To again ...<<Sorry everyone, I didn't rea
 197+ 08/16 Mark Crispin       Re: "Reply-To"<<Brief injection of reality time.
 198+ 08/17 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-To"<<Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:13:21 
 199+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<Mark Crispin writes: > Many, if 
 200+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> It is also the case that many 
 201+ 08/17 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-To"<<Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 20:24:04 
 202+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-To"<<> Please understand that mailing
 203+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Eric Thomas
 204+ 08/17 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: "Reply-To"<<Keith, I think we have more or l
 205+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<> At 6:25 
 206+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Keith Moore
 207+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Jim Conklin
 208+ 08/17 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-To"<<Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:04 
 209+ 08/17 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Does "References:" form threads?<<Jacob, I t
 210+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        "Reply-To" header<<Keith Moore writes: > From be
 211+ 08/17 Jacob Palme        Can ambiguities ever be removed??<<Harald T. Alv
 212+ 08/17 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:43:52 -04
 213+ 08/17 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Can ambiguities ever be removed??<<What John
 214+ 08/17 Eric Thomas        Re: "Reply-To"<<On Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:20:04 +02
 215+ 08/17 Alan Barrett       Re: "Reply-To"<<On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Jim Conklin
 216+ 08/17 Jim Conklin        Re: "Reply-To"<<At 7:34 PM 8/16/95 -0400, Dave B
 217+ 08/17 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 'Reply-To'<<The person who knows best where 
 218+ 08/18 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: "Reply-To"<<Alan Barett writes: > Such maili
 219+ 08/18 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: 'Reply-To'<<Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV> wr
 220+ 08/18 Chris Newman       Re: "Reply-To"<<I'm not sure everyone agrees on 
 221+ 08/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 'Reply-To'<<> Note: Listserv has a personal 
 222+ 08/24 Keith Moore        Getting back on track<<Now that the latest discu
 223+ 08/24 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Ambiguity of the "Newsgroups:" heading field
 224+ 08/24 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Voting in ietf-drums<<Your proposal for handling
 225+ 08/24 Eric Thomas        Re: Getting back on track<<I'm afraid this proce
 226+ 08/24 Robert Elz         Re: Getting back on track<<Date: Thu, 24 Aug 199
 227+ 08/24 Keith Moore        Re: Getting back on track<<> I'm afraid this pro
 228+ 08/24 Michael D'Errico   Re: Getting back on track (a.k.a. Reply-To:)<<So
 229+ 08/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Getting back on track<<Keith Moore writes: >
 230+ 08/24 Keith Moore        Re: Getting back on track<<> I haven't noticed a
 231+ 08/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Getting back on track<<Keith Moore writes: >
 232+ 08/24 Keith Moore        Re: Getting back on track<<> I'd guess, however,
 233+ 08/24 Jim Conklin        Re: Getting back on track (a.k.a. Reply-To:)<<At
 234+ 08/24 Jim Conklin        Re: Getting back on track<<At 12:58 PM 8/24/95 -
 235+ 08/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Getting back on track<<I think the proposed 
 236+ 08/25 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Getting back on track<<Folks, I agree that t
 237+ 08/25 Jacob Palme        How to organize our work<<One main idea of Keith
 238+ 08/25 Keith Moore        From the Chair: how to proceed<<Okay, I don't wa
 239+ 08/25 Keith Moore        From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<I want to cl
 240+ 08/25 Mark Crispin       re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<On Fri, 
 241+ 08/25 Alan Barrett       Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<I agree 
 242+ 08/25 Jim Conklin        re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<At 1:18 
 243+ 08/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> I want
 244+ 08/25 "Roger Fajman"     re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> On Fri
 245+ 08/25 Pete Resnick       re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<On 8/25/
 246+ 08/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> > [ ] 
 247+ 08/25 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> Also, 
 248+ 08/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Getting back on track<<On Thu, 24 Aug 1995 1
 249+ 08/26 Eric Thomas        Re: Getting back on track (a.k.a. Reply-To:)<<On
 250+ 08/25 Mark Crispin       Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<On Fri, 
 251+ 08/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> [ ] wh
 252+ 08/26 Dave Barr          Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<In messa
 253+ 08/26 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> > I do
 254+ 08/27 Eric Thomas        Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<I think 
 255+ 08/26 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> If thi
 256+ 08/27 Robert Elz         Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<Date: Su
 257+ 08/27 Chris Newman       Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<If we be
 258+ 08/27 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> I beli
 259+ 08/28 Alan Barrett       Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<> [ ] wh
 260+ 08/28 Robert Elz         Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<Date: Mo
 261+ 08/28 Jacob Palme        Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<The caus
 262+ 08/29 Jim Conklin        Re: From the Chair: the Reply-To issue<<I think 
 263+ 08/29 "Brent B. Welch"   Brent Welch / exmh<<Hello - I've just joined thi
 264+ 09/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  Another header-munging example.....<<Now, here's
 265+ 09/11 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Another header-munging example.....<<Harald 
 266+ 09/11 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example.....<<(from t
 267+ 09/12 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Mailing list handling in ietf-drums work<<Keith 
 268+ 09/13 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Another header-munging example.....<<Keith, 
 269+ 09/13 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example.....<<> OK, d
 270+ 09/14 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Another header-munging example.....<<The pro
 271+ 09/14 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Another header-munging example.....<<Harald,
 272+ 09/14 Jacob Palme        Re: Another header-munging example<<Keith Moore 
 273+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<(from the fl
 274+ 09/14 Eric Thomas        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Thu, 14 S
 275+ 09/14 manros@interramp.  Re: Another header-munging example<<Friends, Con
 276+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<> >Of course
 277+ 09/14 Eric Thomas        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Thu, 14 S
 278+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<> >By "we" I
 279+ 09/14 Keith Moore        summing up: the meaning of the reply-to header<<
 280+ 09/14 "Roger Fajman"     Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 281+ 09/14 Mark Crispin       re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 282+ 09/14 "Brent B. Welch"   Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 283+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Thu, 14 S
 284+ 09/14 Eric Norman        From: the beginning<<> Perhaps we could nail dow
 285+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        Resent- facility<<Keith Moore writes: > For thin
 286+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Thu, 14 S
 287+ 09/14 Mark Crispin       Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 288+ 09/15 Robert Elz         Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 289+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<(from the ch
 290+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<> In the cas
 291+ 09/14 Mark Crispin       Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 292+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 293+ 09/14 Keith Moore        Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 294+ 09/15 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Another header-munging example<<> Do people 
 295+ 09/15 Eric Thomas        Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 296+ 09/15 Eric Thomas        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Fri, 15 S
 297+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        Re: Another header-munging example<<On Thu, 14 S
 298+ 09/15 Chris Newman       Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 299+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        <<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> writes: > On th
 300+ 09/15 Jacob Palme        Reply-To ambiguity<<My impression from what Keit
 301+ 09/15 "Brent B. Welch"   <<>>>Jacob Palme said: > Those who do not unders
 302+ 09/15 Keith Moore        Re: Another header-munging example<<> (2) There 
 303+ 09/15 Mark Crispin       Re: Another header-munging example<<On Fri, 15 S
 304+ 09/16 Eric Thomas        Re: Another header-munging example<<I just don't
 305+ 09/16 Jacob Palme        Re: your mail<<On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Brent B. Wel
 306+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: summing up: the meaning of the reply-to head
 307+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: Another header-munging example<<Date: Fri, 1
 308+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: your mail<<Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 11:47:16 +
 309+ 09/17 Jacob Palme        Re: your mail<<On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Robert Elz w
 310+ 09/18 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Resent- facility<<I've found Resent: useful 
 311+ 09/18 Eric Thomas        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:55:
 312+ 09/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Eric 
 313+ 09/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 Harald
 314+ 09/18 Chris Newman       Re:<<"Brent B. Welch" <Brent.Welch@eng.sun.com> 
 315+ 09/18 Eric Thomas        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:25:
 316+ 09/18 Mark Crispin       Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:55:
 317+ 09/19 Robert Elz         Re: Resent- facility<<Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:
 318+ 09/19 Robert Elz         Re:<<Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 10:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
 319+ 09/18 Eric Thomas        Re: Resent- facility<<On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 05:38:
 320+ 09/18 Mark Crispin       Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:54:
 321+ 09/18 Keith Moore        Call for documentation: theory and practice of R
 322+ 09/18 Eric Thomas        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:43:
 323+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: your mail<<> I have not proposed more than t
 324+ 09/19 Robert Elz         Re: Resent- facility<<Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:
 325+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Resent- facility<<> So what is needed might 
 326+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Resent- facility<<> >The "Reply all" command
 327+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Resent- facility<<> I'm not sure about that.
 328+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Resent- facility<<> On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:5
 329+ 09/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Call for documentation: theory and practice 
 330+ 09/18 Keith Moore        one use of Resent-*<<okay, I'll follow my own re
 331+ 09/18 Keith Moore        note on Resent-* discussions<<When talking about
 332+ 09/18 Eric Norman        Re: one use of Resent-*<<> If you autoforward yo
 333+ 09/19 Jacob Palme        Re: Resent- facility<<On Mon, 18 Sep 1995, Eric 
 334+ 09/19 Jacob Palme        "Resent-" versus "Content-Type: Message/RFC822" 
 335+ 09/19 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Resent- facility<<To Eric: I've found the MI
 336+ 09/19 Jacob Palme        "Comments" RFC 822 heading field<<My experience 
 337+ 09/19 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Call for documentation: theory and practice 
 338+ 09/19 Jacob Palme        Two reply commands<<Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV
 340+ 09/19 Eric Thomas        Re: "Comments" RFC 822 heading field<<Personally
 341+ 09/19 Chris Newman       Re: "Comments" RFC 822 heading field<<For contex
 342+ 09/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Two reply commands<<> From your viewpoint, t
 343+ 09/19 Eric Norman        Re: Two reply commands<<> are only two reasonabl
 344+ 09/22 Keith Moore        UA reply commands<<(from the floor) Most of the 
 345+ 09/22 Keith Moore        support for Postmaster address<<RFC 821 requires
 346+ 09/22 Keith Moore        Comments and Resent-* header fields<<(from the c
 347+ 09/23 Eric Thomas        Re: UA reply commands<<On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:22
 348+ 09/23 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Fri,
 349+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: S
 350+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: F
 351+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: support for Postmaster address<<Date: Fri, 2
 352+ 09/23 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Sun,
 353+ 09/23 "Roger Fajman"     Re: support for Postmaster address<<> Another ca
 354+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: support for Postmaster address<<Date: Sat, 2
 355+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: S
 356+ 09/24 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Sun,
 357+ 09/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: S
 358+ 09/24 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Mon,
 359+ 09/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: S
 360+ 09/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Mon,
 361+ 09/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Date: M
 362+ 09/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Mon,
 363+ 09/25 Dave Barr          Re: note on Resent-* discussions<<In message <19
 364+ 09/25 Dave Barr          Re: support for Postmaster address<<In message <
 365+ 09/26 Alain.Durand@imag  Re: support for Postmaster address<<On Sep 25, 1
 366+ 09/29 Jacob Palme        User's choice of whom to send replies to<<Keith 
 367+ 09/29 owner-drums        
 369+ 09/29 Keith Moore        sorry about that<<Jacob's message to drums went 
 370+ 09/30 "Roger Fajman"     <<> Agreed. And as far as the standard is concer
 371+ 10/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<Eric...
 372+ 10/03 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<If a me
 373+ 10/03 Mark Crispin       Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Tue,
 374+ 10/03 Keith Moore        What's the Sender header for?<<(from the floor) 
 375+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<> It ha
 376+ 10/03 Eric Thomas        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<On Tue,
 377+ 10/03 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 3 Oct
 378+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> >I personal
 379+ 10/03 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 03 Oc
 380+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> > Since the
 381+ 10/03 Eric Norman        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> Basically, 
 382+ 10/03 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<> If a 
 383+ 10/04 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 03 Oc
 384+ 10/04 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 3 Oct
 385+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> > I persona
 386+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<> Proba
 387+ 10/03 "Roger Fajman"     Re: What's the Sender header for?<<It may be hel
 388+ 10/03 "Roger Fajman"     Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> (1) Some ma
 389+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> >Furthermor
 390+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> (2) Some us
 391+ 10/03 Eric Norman        Re: What's the sender header for?<<>>what causes
 392+ 10/03 Eric Norman        Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<> If a 
 393+ 10/04 Keith Moore        Re: What's the sender header for?<<> Let's not f
 394+ 10/03 Eric Norman        MH broken?<<>MH does this. If you set the From f
 395+ 10/04 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields<<> > If 
 396+ 10/04 Keith Moore        Re: MH broken?<<> >MH does this. If you set the 
 397+ 10/04 Eric Norman        Re: What's the sender header for?<<>> Keith says
 398+ 10/04 Keith Moore        Re: What's the sender header for?<<> I think tha
 399+ 10/04 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the sender header for?<<On Tue, 3 Oct
 400+ 10/04 Jacob Palme        VB: Microsoft and Internet standards (fwd)<<--- 
 401+ 10/04 Mark Crispin       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<For your info
 402+ 10/04 Mark Crispin       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 03 Oc
 403+ 10/04 Alan Barrett       Re: support for Postmaster address<<Sorry, I am 
 404+ 10/04 "Roger Fajman"     Re: What's the sender header for?<<> The differe
 405+ 10/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: support for Postmaster address<<I think the 
 406+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: support for Postmaster address<<- Any domain
 407+ 10/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: support for Postmaster address<<That's the n
 408+ 10/05 Alain.Durand@imag  Re: support for Postmaster address<<On Oct 5, 1:
 409+ 10/05 Michael D'Errico   Re: support for Postmaster address<<> - Any FQDN
 410+ 10/05 Eric Norman        Re: support for Postmaster address<<> BTW, RFC 1
 411+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: support for Postmaster address<<> > BTW, RFC
 412+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: support for Postmaster address<<> After read
 413+ 10/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: support for Postmaster address<<RCPT TO:<any
 414+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: support for Postmaster address<<+ for any SM
 415+ 10/06 Keith Moore        Re: support for Postmaster address<<> + for any 
 416+ 10/06 Jim Conklin        Re: support for Postmaster address<<At 1:35 AM 1
 417+ 10/09 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: What's the Sender header for?<<I'm willing t
 418+ 10/10 Mark Crispin       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Mon, 09 Oc
 419+ 10/10 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 10 Oc
 420+ 10/11 Robert Elz         Re: What's the Sender header for?<<[...] there a
 421+ 10/10 Mark Crispin       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Wed, 11 Oc
 422+ 10/10 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 10 Oc
 423+ 10/10 Mark Crispin       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 10 Oc
 424+ 10/10 Chris Newman       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> My mail pro
 425+ 10/10 Eric Norman        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> From: Rober
 426+ 10/10 Eric Thomas        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<On Tue, 10 Oc
 427+ 10/10 Keith Moore        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> This is rel
 428+ 10/11 Robert Elz         Re: What's the Sender header for?<<of what use i
 429+ 10/11 Robert Elz         Re: What's the Sender header for?<<Instead of "r
 430+ 10/10 Eric Norman        Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> And as for 
 431+ 10/11 Alan Barrett       Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> I'm tempted
 432+ 10/11 Robert Elz         Re: What's the Sender header for?<<> Two things.
 433+ 10/19 Harald.T.Alvestra  About bounce messages.....<<Hi, just thought I'd
 434+ 10/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: About bounce messages.....<<> just thought I
 435+ 10/20 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: About bounce messages.....<<The output of DR
 436+ 10/23 "Jacob Palme DSV-  About bounce messages.....<<Harald wrote: > When
 437+ 10/24 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: About bounce messages.....<<See previous dis
 438+ 11/07 Jacob Palme        (fwd) Posted-To standard (was Re: Posted-To: hea
 439+ 11/07 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: (fwd) Posted-To standard (was Re: Posted-To:
 440+ 11/07 Jacob Palme        Re: (fwd) Posted-To standard (was Re: Posted-To:
 441+ 11/09 Internet-Drafts@C  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-00.txt<<--Ne
 442+ 11/27 Keith Moore        SMTP draft / Dallas agenda<<The Dallas IETF meet
 443+ 11/27 Paul Hoffman       Reorganization of smtpupd-01<<Of course, there a
 444+ 11/27 Internet-Drafts@C  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<<--Ne
 445+ 11/30 Jacob Palme        On the use of 8-bit transfer<<Is it correct that
 446+ 11/30 Keith Moore        Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<> Is it correc
 447+ 11/30 "Kari E. Hurtta"   Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<Jacob Palme ki
 448+ 11/30 Keith Moore        Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<> If 8BITMIME 
 449+ 11/30 Prabhat Keni       Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<> If 8-bit is 
 450+ 11/30 "Brent B. Welch"   comments on smtpupd-01.txt<<First - I just took 
 451+ 12/01 "Kari E. Hurtta"   Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<Keith Moore ki
 452+ 12/01 Keith Moore        rough agenda for next week's meetings<<Okay, her
 453+ 12/01 Pete Resnick       Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<On 11/30/95 at
 454+ 12/01 Keith Moore        Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<> If it will "
 455+ 12/01 Paul Hoffman       Re: rough agenda for next week's meetings<<At 3:
 456+ 12/01 Keith Moore        Re: rough agenda for next week's meetings<<> I h
 457+ 12/02 "Kari E. Hurtta"   Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<[ I suppose th
 458+ 12/01 "Harald T. Alvest  Re: On the use of 8-bit transfer<<Note that: - t
 459+ 12/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  My opinion on VRFY<<This is written during the W
 460+ 12/05 Eric Allman        Re: My opinion on VRFY<<This may be harder than 
 461+ 12/06 Robert Elz         Re: My opinion on VRFY<<Also, VRFY should be fas
 462+ 12/06 Jacob Palme        Clarify amibuities<<Sorry if I go back to the ol
 463+ 12/06 Eric Allman        Re: My opinion on VRFY<<Re: : From: Robert Elz <
 464+ 12/06 Eric Allman        comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<<Fol
 465+ 12/07 Robert Elz         Re: My opinion on VRFY<<Can you suggest a way to
 466+ 12/07 Robert Elz         Re: Clarify amibuities<<I guess everyone agrees 
 467+ 12/06 Jim Conklin        Notes on Tuesday's WG meeting<<Meta-issues -----
 468+ 12/07 Robert Elz         Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<
 469+ 12/07 Robert Elz         Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<
 470+ 12/06 Jim Conklin        Re: Clarify amibuities)<<wants replies to be sen
 471+ 12/06 Eric Allman        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<
 472+ 12/06 Eric Allman        Re: My opinion on VRFY<<Re: : From: Robert Elz <
 473+ 12/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: My opinion on VRFY<<If the SMTP server encou
 474+ 12/07 Jacob Palme        Re: Clarify amibuities<<I do not agree. There is
 475+ 12/07 Jacob Palme        Re: Clarify amibuities)<<On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Jim
 476+ 12/06 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: My opinion on VRFY<<Eric, the behaviour that
 477+ 12/08 Robert Elz         Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<
 478+ 12/08 Robert Elz         Re: Clarify amibuities<<I do not agree. There is
 479+ 12/07 "Perry E. Metzger  IPv6 address representation<<Just checking, but 
 480+ 12/08 "Roger Fajman"     Re: IPv6 address representation<<> Just checking
 481+ 12/08 John Noerenberg    Re: Clarify amibuities)<<At 1:24 PM 12/7/95, Jac
 482+ 12/08 Jacob Palme        Re: Clarify amibuities<<On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Robe
 483+ 12/09 Robert Elz         Re: Clarify amibuities<<Is not that what you mea
 484+ 12/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: IPv6 address representation<<"Roger Fajman" 
 485+ 12/08 Keith Moore        From the Chair: reply-to header
 487+ 12/09 Olle Jarnefors     Re: IPv6 address representation<<Roger Fajman <R
 488+ 12/10 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: IPv6 address representation<<Olle Jarnefors 
 489+ 12/10 Paul Hoffman       Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt<
 490+ 12/11 Lars-Johan Liman   Found my lost notes in Dallas?<<Sorry to bother 
 491+ 12/11 Lars-Johan Liman   Subscribe.<<Hi Keith, Can you please put me on t
 492+ 12/10 Paul Hoffman       Some possible decision choices<<Post-Dallas gree
 493+ 12/10 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: IPv6 address representation<<Olle, the probl
 494+ 12/11 Jim Conklin        Re: Clarify amibuities)<<mailing list manager ag
 495+ 12/11 The Crazy Cyberba  Re: Clarify amibuities)<<On Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:
 496+ 12/11 Mark Crispin       Re: Clarify amibuities)<<On Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:
 497+ 12/11 John Noerenberg    Re: Clarify amibuities)<<At 2:27 AM 12/8/95, Joh
 498+ 12/12 Robert Elz         Re: Clarify amibuities)<<I keep on getting reply
 499+ 12/12 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: IPv6 address representation<<Perry, on the s
 500+ 12/18 Jim Conklin        Re: Clarify amibuities)<<At 10:37 AM 12/11/95 -0
 502+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        Drums proposal: Format of Message-ID-s<<RFC 822 
 503+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        Drums proposal: Making Message-ID more mandatory
 504+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        <<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> wrote: > I sugges
 506+ 12/29 Robert Elz         Re: Drums proposal: Making Message-ID more manda
 507+ 12/29 Robert Elz         Header to label lists (was untitled)<<Of Mailing
 508+ 12/29 Jim Conklin        Re:<<I concur with the desirability of a new hea
 509+ 12/29 Jim Conklin        Re: Mandatory headers (was Making Message-ID ...
 510+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        Re: Drums proposal: Format of Message-ID-s<<On F
 511+ 12/30 Robert Elz         Re: Mandatory headers (was Making Message-ID ...
 512+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        The syntax of Message-ID<<Apparently the syntax 
 513+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        The use of 8-bit<<Many European alphabets use ch
 514+ 12/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: The use of 8-bit<<The problem is that you ar
 515+ 12/29 John Gardiner Mye  smtpupd-01 issues<<Section 2.3(2): I think it's 
 516+ 12/29 Mark Crispin       re: The use of 8-bit<<On Fri, 29 Dec 1995 18:35:
 517+ 12/29 John Gardiner Mye  loop detection<<During the WG meeting, I mention
 518+ 12/29 Paul Hoffman       Re: The use of 8-bit<<>It seems to me that it is
 519+ 12/29 Paul Hoffman       Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<At 4:5
 520+ 12/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: The use of 8-bit<<Paul Hoffman writes: > >It
 521+ 12/30 Keith Moore        Re: The use of 8-bit<<> Many European alphabets 
 522+ 12/30 Keith Moore        let's keep our messages within scope...<<Sigh. I
 523+ 12/30 Jacob Palme        Re: The use of 8-bit<<On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, Perry
 524+ 12/30 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<paulh@
 525+ 12/31 "Robert A. Rosenb  Re: The use of 8-bit<<At 1:39 12/30/95, Keith Mo
 526+ 01/01 "Jacob Palme DSV-  loop detection<<The "Mailing-List:" header field
 527+ 01/01 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<> I ha
 528+ 01/01 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<"Jacob
 529+ 01/01 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<> I ha
 530+ 01/02 Keith Moore        Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<Folks,
 531+ 01/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<As AD 
 532+ 01/02 Eric Thomas        Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<You ca
 533+ 01/02 John C Klensin     Re: Header to label lists (was untitled)<<At 09:
 534+ 01/02 Jim Conklin        Re: Header to label lists<<At 11:18 AM 12/30/95 
 535+ 01/05 Jacob Palme        The conservative and liberal commandment<<"Be li
 536+ 01/05 Keith Moore        Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<> 
 537+ 01/05 Robert Elz         Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<I 
 538+ 01/05 Alain Zahm         Rep (2) : The conservative and liberal commandme
 539+ 01/05 Robert Elz         Re: Rep (2) : The conservative and liberal comma
 540+ 01/05 Keith Moore        Re: Rep (2) : The conservative and liberal comma
 541+ 01/05 Keith Moore        Re: Rep (2) : The conservative and liberal comma
 542+ 01/05 Jacob Palme        Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<On
 543+ 01/05 Jacob Palme        Name of RFC822<<Because of the confusion created
 544+ 01/05 Dave Crocker       Re: Name of RFC822<<At 3:33 AM 1/5/96, Jacob Pal
 545+ 01/05 Denis McKeon       Re: Name of RFC822<<> The modern view is that 82
 546+ 01/05 Keith Moore        Re: Name of RFC822<<> RFC822 ought to have such 
 547+ 01/05 Dave Crocker       Re: Name of RFC822<<At 8:53 AM 1/5/96, Keith Moo
 548+ 01/05 Jim Conklin        Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<At
 549+ 01/05 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: Name of RFC822<<How about MSG? SMTP describe
 550+ 01/05 John Gardiner Mye  "be liberal in what you accept" considered harmf
 551+ 01/05 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 552+ 01/07 Alan Barrett       Re: loop detection<<> To do loop detection by ex
 553+ 01/07 Alan Barrett       Re: The syntax of Message-ID<<> Date: Fri, 29 De
 554+ 01/08 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: The syntax of Message-ID<<Note that the RFC 
 555+ 01/08 John C Klensin     Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 556+ 01/08 Mark Crispin       Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 557+ 01/08 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 558+ 01/09 John Gardiner Mye  Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 559+ 01/09 Keith Moore        Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 560+ 01/12 Jacob Palme        Multiple occurences of the same header<<Is RFC82
 561+ 01/16 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Name of RFC822<<I've said before that I thin
 562+ 01/16 Dave Crocker       Re: Name of RFC822<<At 3:32 AM 1/16/96, Harald.T
 563+ 01/17 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Name of RFC822<<> I've said before that I th
 564+ 01/17 Tim Goodwin        Re: smtpupd-01 issues<<jgm+@CMU.EDU (John Gardin
 565+ 01/17 Tim Goodwin        Re: loop detection<<jgm+@CMU.EDU (John Gardiner 
 566+ 01/18 Jacob Palme        Harmonizing format of Message-ID in news and e-m
 567+ 01/18 Jacob Palme        Re: "be liberal in what you accept" considered h
 568+ 01/18 Harald.T.Alvestra  A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Ladies an
 569+ 01/18 John Gardiner Mye  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<The s
 570+ 01/18 Scott Bradner      Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<this 
 571+ 01/19 Robert Elz         Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Date:
 572+ 01/21 Jacob Palme        Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<On
 573+ 01/21 Eric Thomas        Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<On
 574+ 01/22 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: The conservative and liberal commandment<<On
 575+ 01/23 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Harmonizing format of Message-ID in news and
 576+ 01/23 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<If we
 577+ 01/23 Jacob Palme        Re: Harmonizing format of Message-ID in news and
 578+ 01/23 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<> If 
 579+ 01/23 Mark Crispin       Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<On Tu
 580+ 01/23 Prabhat Keni       Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Stron
 581+ 01/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Getting rid of Encrypted and group syntax<<O
 582+ 01/24 Pete Resnick       Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<On 1/
 583+ 01/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<"Eric
 584+ 01/25 Robert Elz         Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Date:
 585+ 01/24 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<> How
 586+ 01/24 Mark Crispin       Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<On We
 587+ 01/24 "Eric Norman (MAC  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<I pro
 588+ 01/24 Mark Crispin       Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<On We
 589+ 01/24 Erik Forsberg      Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Mark 
 590+ 01/25 Robert Elz         Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<Date:
 591+ 01/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<> > I
 592+ 01/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals<<"Roge
 593+ 01/29 SDOTUL4%MP021@MPA  testing only, plz ignore..........
 594+ 02/15 Harald.T.Alvestra  Cancellation of second DRUMS slot in LA<<Since t
 595+ 02/22 Harald.T.Alvestra  Cancellation of second DRUMS slot in LA<<Please 
 596+ 02/22 Marcia Beaulieu    LOS ANGELES IETF: DRUMS-cancellation of 2nd Sess
 597+ 02/23 Harald.T.Alvestra  Please swap my cancels on DRUMS<<Given that POIS
 598+ 02/23 Marcia Beaulieu    Re: Please swap my cancels on DRUMS<<Harald, Thi
 599+ 02/29 D. J. Bernstein    comments from a newcomer<<I found draft-ietf-dru
 600+ 02/28 Keith Moore        Re: comments from a newcomer<<> > [[Note in draf
 601+ 02/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: comments from a newcomer<<> The real point h
 602+ 02/29 Keith Moore        Re: comments from a newcomer<<> > The entire pur
 603+ 02/29 John Gardiner Mye  Re: comments from a newcomer<<Keith Moore <moore
 604+ 03/01 Robert Elz         Re: comments from a newcomer<<Date: Thu, 29 Feb 
 605+ 02/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: comments from a newcomer<<D. J. Bernstein wr
 606+ 02/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: comments from a newcomer<<> Requiring SMTPs 
 607+ 02/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: comments from a newcomer<<D. J. Bernstein wr
 608+ 02/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: comments from a newcomer<<> You can't crash 
 609+ 03/01 Robert Elz         Re: comments from a newcomer<<Date: 29 Feb 1996 
 610+ 03/02 Keith Moore        proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<For Frid
 611+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<I se
 612+ 03/04 Michael D'Errico   Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> I 
 613+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> Ar
 614+ 03/05 Michael D'Errico   Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> I 
 615+ 03/05 Jim Conklin        Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<At 4
 616+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> Yo
 617+ 03/06 Robert Elz         Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<Date
 618+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> Pi
 619+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> I 
 620+ 03/05 Matti Aarnio       Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> > 
 621+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> > 
 622+ 03/05 Jim Conklin        Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<At 4
 623+ 03/05 Michael D'Errico   Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> Ke
 624+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<> In
 625+ 03/05 Keith Moore        re PIPELINING<<all of this talk about the merits
 626+ 03/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> all of this talk about the 
 627+ 03/06 Robert Elz         Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<Date
 628+ 03/05 Mark Crispin       Re: re PIPELINING<<On 5 Mar 1996 23:48:19 GMT, D
 629+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> It is important that "effic
 630+ 03/05 "michael (m.) har  Multiple RCPT-TOs (was "Re: proposed agenda for 
 631+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple RCPT-TOs<<> No multimedia mail syst
 632+ 03/05 Michael D'Errico   Re: re PIPELINING<<[Sorry Keith....] > > It is i
 633+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> (1) require N processes wit
 634+ 03/06 Keith Moore        Re: re PIPELINING<<> If you go through your logs
 635+ 03/06 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple RCPT-TOs<<> What I'm objecting to i
 636+ 03/07 Robert Elz         Re: re PIPELINING<<Date: 6 Mar 1996 03:18:33 GMT
 637+ 03/06 Tim Goodwin        Re: PIPELINING<<> > (1) require N processes with
 638+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> My experience contradicts t
 639+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: PIPELINING<<> Uh-huh. You've never administe
 640+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple RCPT-TOs<<> Conserving bandwidth ra
 641+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       Re: re PIPELINING<<On Wed, 06 Mar 1996 04:03:26 
 642+ 03/06 John Gardiner Mye  Message format document outline<<The following i
 643+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       re: Message format document outline<<On Wed, 6 M
 644+ 03/06 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<Mark Crispi
 645+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> Bernstein's algorithm is in
 646+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       Re: Message format document outline<<On Wed, 6 M
 647+ 03/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<One ambigui
 648+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       Re: re PIPELINING<<I propose that we all ignore 
 649+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    re: Message format document outline<<John has su
 650+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<[ MRC: ] > I propose that we 
 651+ 03/06 John Beck          Re: re PIPELINING<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. 
 652+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       Re: re PIPELINING<<On 7 Mar 1996 02:21:16 GMT, D
 653+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> Trust is built on civility 
 654+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<Probably most of the DRUMS pa
 655+ 03/06 Mark Crispin       Re: re PIPELINING<<On 7 Mar 1996 03:22:39 GMT, D
 656+ 03/07 Keith Moore        civility on this list<<I suggest we stick to tec
 657+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> You have several avenues of
 658+ 03/07 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<Mark Crispi
 659+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> > Message
 660+ 03/07 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<djb@koobera
 661+ 03/06 Michael D'Errico   Re: re PIPELINING<<> > Until you learn to addres
 662+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: re PIPELINING<<> you will see that I stated 
 663+ 03/07 Mark Crispin       Re: Message format document outline<<On Thu, 7 M
 664+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> Invisible
 665+ 03/07 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<Mark Crispi
 666+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> The secti
 667+ 03/07 Mark Crispin       Re: Message format document outline<<On Thu, 7 M
 668+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> I also ob
 669+ 03/07 Pete Resnick       Re: Message format document outline<<On 3/7/96 a
 670+ 03/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> If "choki
 671+ 03/07 Chris Newman       Re: Message format document outline<<djb@koobera
 672+ 03/08 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<I've seen t
 673+ 03/07 Dave Barr          Re: Message format document outline<<In message 
 674+ 03/08 Paul Overell       Re: Message format document outline<<In article 
 675+ 03/09 Robert Elz         Re: Message format document outline<<Date: Fri, 
 676+ 03/08 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> I don't b
 677+ 03/10 Pete Resnick       Re: Message format document outline<<On 3/7/96 a
 678+ 03/11 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> I meant s
 679+ 03/11 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Message format document outline<<The LWSP in
 680+ 03/11 Ofer Inbar         Re: Message format document outline<<Several yea
 681+ 03/11 John Gardiner Mye  Free insertion of linear-white-space<<I don't se
 682+ 03/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<Paul Overel
 683+ 03/11 Mark Crispin       re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On Mon
 684+ 03/12 Robert Elz         Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Date: 
 685+ 03/11 Mark Crispin       Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On Tue
 686+ 03/12 Robert Elz         Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Date: 
 687+ 03/11 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> I do
 688+ 03/11 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> > This is
 689+ 03/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Keith 
 690+ 03/11 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > Sa
 691+ 03/11 Mark Crispin       Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Once a
 692+ 03/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Mark C
 693+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> Keit
 694+ 03/12 Peter Sylvester    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<How mu
 695+ 03/12 Dave Hanna         Re: re PIPELINING<<From: Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda
 696+ 03/12 Dave Hanna         Re: comments from a newcomer<<Message-ID: <clBPn
 697+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> An IETF s
 698+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> but for t
 699+ 03/12 Eric Thomas        Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting<<On T
 700+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> > but for
 701+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> The LWSP 
 702+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> I do
 703+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<[ "this".is
 704+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> Once
 705+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> So what? 
 706+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > Lo
 707+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> In this c
 708+ 03/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Message format document outline<<On 3/12/96 
 709+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> while the
 710+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> The 
 711+ 03/12 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Message format document outline<<Keith Moore
 712+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> > + user 
 713+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> Here
 714+ 03/12 John Gardiner Mye  \-quoting<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Berns
 715+ 03/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: \-quoting<<> 822 section 3.4.4 states that \
 716+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<> > + user 
 717+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message format document outline<<> Can you q
 718+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > He
 719+ 03/12 John Gardiner Mye  Re: \-quoting<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. B
 720+ 03/12 John Gardiner Mye  local-part quoting<<I was just going to simply r
 721+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Keith 
 722+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> Keit
 723+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: local-part quoting<<> I was just going to si
 724+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > > 
 725+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > > 
 726+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: Message format document outline<<------- =_a
 727+ 03/13 Eric Thomas        Re: Message format document outline<<Perhaps som
 728+ 03/13 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Keith 
 729+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> I re
 730+ 03/13 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Keith 
 731+ 03/13 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<(oops,
 732+ 03/13 Mark Crispin       Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<For wh
 733+ 03/13 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message format document outline<<moore@cs.ut
 734+ 03/13 John Gardiner Mye  specials<<Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> 
 735+ 03/13 Eric Thomas        Re: Message format document outline<<On 13 Mar 1
 736+ 03/13 Mark Crispin       re: specials<<On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:51:42 -0500
 737+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: specials<<> Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington
 738+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    re: specials<<So the new standards should say mu
 739+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: specials<<> On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:51:42 -05
 740+ 03/13 Mark Crispin       Re: specials<<On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:17:09 -0500
 741+ 03/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<> Rather, RFC 822 messages look si
 742+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: specials<<> You are very welcome. If you rem
 743+ 03/13 Mark Crispin       Re: specials<<On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:52:07 -0500
 744+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: specials<<> There is too much syntax in 822.
 745+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<> The same > nightmare scenarios o
 746+ 03/13 Michael D'Errico   Re: specials<<> We don't know what will happen >
 747+ 03/13 Mark Crispin       Re: specials<<On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:04:43 -0500
 748+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<> My recommendation is to remove "
 749+ 03/14 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<-----B
 750+ 03/14 Chris Newman       822bis grammar state<<I just wanted to see if I 
 751+ 03/14 John Gardiner Mye  Re: specials<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> wri
 752+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> A sp
 753+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 822bis grammar state<<Seems to me that there
 754+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<> My grammar for (b) is a mess: So
 755+ 03/14 Mark Crispin       Re: 822bis grammar state<<On 14 Mar 1996 18:56:3
 756+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<[ (a) = removing . from specials; 
 757+ 03/14 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > A 
 758+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> + wh
 759+ 03/14 John Gardiner Mye  Re: specials<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Be
 760+ 03/14 John Gardiner Mye  821 vs 822 quoting<<<Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett
 761+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<> That isn't correct. Sure it is. 
 762+ 03/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: specials<<MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) wrote
 763+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 822bis grammar state<<> > 3c. need not recog
 764+ 03/14 Keith Moore        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> > + 
 765+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> give
 766+ 03/14 Keith Moore        Re: specials<<> djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. 
 767+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<> Unfortunately, Eric Th
 768+ 03/14 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<Oops. 
 769+ 03/14 Internet-Drafts@C  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<--NextP
 770+ 03/14 Chris Newman       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<I t
 771+ 03/15 Eric Thomas        Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<On Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:3
 772+ 03/14 MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB  ABNF<<Section 2 "RULE NAMING" This is oddly word
 773+ 03/15 Eric Thomas        Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<On 14 Mar 1996 23:08:55 
 774+ 03/15 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 775+ 03/15 Eric Thomas        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<I'm no
 776+ 03/14 Peter Sylvester    Re: Message format document outline<<There are n
 777+ 03/14 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF<<At 6:42 PM 3/14/96, <MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB
 778+ 03/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<moore@
 779+ 03/15 Paul Overell       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<The
 780+ 03/15 Paul Overell       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<The
 781+ 03/15 Chris Newman       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<Pau
 782+ 03/15 Chris Newman       Re: ABNF<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com
 783+ 03/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<ERIC@V
 784+ 03/15 Dave Crocker       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<Agg
 785+ 03/16 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> The 
 786+ 03/16 Kai Henningsen     Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-00.txt<<pau
 787+ 03/16 Eric Thomas        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 16 
 788+ 03/16 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> The 
 789+ 03/16 Pete Resnick       Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 3/1
 790+ 03/16 Eric Thomas        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 16 
 791+ 03/16 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> A di
 792+ 03/16 Eric Thomas        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 16 
 793+ 03/16 Mark Crispin       Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 16 
 794+ 03/16 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> The 
 795+ 03/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 796+ 03/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 797+ 03/17 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> The 
 798+ 03/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 799+ 03/17 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> Dan,
 800+ 03/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 801+ 03/17 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> No, 
 802+ 03/17 Eric Thomas        Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<On 17 
 803+ 03/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<D. J. 
 804+ 03/17 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space<<> "Dam
 805+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    multiple RCPTs, again<<> People say things like 
 806+ 03/17 Mark Crispin       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<"We could do that, bu
 807+ 03/17 Michael D'Errico   Legitimizing the %-hack in SMTP (or "Adding '%' 
 808+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<Crispin admits that m
 809+ 03/17 Mark Crispin       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<I guess this is all a
 810+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> I guess this is all
 811+ 03/17 Mark Crispin       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<I guess this is all a
 812+ 03/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<D. J. Bernstein write
 813+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<[ broken record: ] > 
 814+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<On 3/18/96 at 1:18 AM
 815+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> I saw timings from 
 816+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<Let's quickly dismiss
 817+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> a) Was Brian's send
 818+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> The SMTP update dra
 819+ 03/18 "Perry E. Metzger  D.J. Bernstein<<There has been considerable Stur
 820+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: D. J. Bernstein<<> Mr. Bernstein claims to m
 821+ 03/18 Matti Aarnio       Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> > The SMTP update d
 822+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Legitimizing the %-hack in SMTP (or "Adding 
 823+ 03/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<D. J. Bernstein write
 824+ 03/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: D. J. Bernstein<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > I
 825+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<Most of Perry's mista
 826+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<: Pete Resnick, for e
 827+ 03/18 Dave Crocker       problems vs. cleanliness vs. enhancements<<Folks
 828+ 03/18 Eric Thomas        Re: D. J. Bernstein<<On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:10:4
 829+ 03/18 Mark Crispin       re: multiple RCPTs, again<<On 18 Mar 1996 08:51:
 830+ 03/18 Tim Goodwin        Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> Unfortunately, the 
 831+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> > Unconditional com
 832+ 03/18 Dave Crocker       Rough Consensus: we are all assholes<<In looking
 833+ 03/18 Keith Moore        From the Chair: multiple RCPTs<<The Chair hereby
 834+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    re: multiple RCPTs, again<<> (although it bewild
 835+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: From the Chair: multiple RCPTs<<> The Chair 
 836+ 03/18 Mark Crispin       RTT vs DNS lookup time<<On 18 Mar 1996 20:51:12 
 837+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    allow <ext>?<<Here's an enhancement request. I'd
 838+ 03/18 John Gardiner Mye  Re: specials<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Be
 839+ 03/18 John Gardiner Mye  Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<Eric Thomas <ERIC@VM.SE.
 840+ 03/18 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Legitimizing the %-hack in SMTP (or "Adding 
 841+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: 822bis grammar state<<> > > 3c. need not rec
 842+ 03/18 John Gardiner Mye  Re: allow <ext>?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J
 843+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: specials<<I like the separate tokenizer in 8
 844+ 03/18 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> > it would be nice to have a
 845+ 03/19 Eric Thomas        Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:4
 846+ 03/19 Richard Clayton    Re: 822bis grammar state<<In article <1996031822
 847+ 03/19 D. J. Bernstein    right-to-left parsing<<Enhancement suggestion: 8
 848+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Field structure<<At 10:16 AM 3/7/96, John Gardin
 849+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       addr-spec (local-part@domain)<<Interesting set o
 850+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: allow <ext>?<<This thread expands, I believe
 851+ 03/19 Jim Conklin        Re: Legitimizing the %-hack in SMTP (or "Adding 
 852+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: 821 vs 822 quoting<<At 7:50 AM 3/19/96, Eric
 853+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: specials<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Be
 854+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: allow <ext>?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J
 855+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: right-to-left parsing<<I was considering put
 856+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Legitimizing the %-hack in SMTP (or "Adding 
 857+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       timezones & Date<<Well, you have to give the RFC
 858+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       lexical analyzer vs. parser vs. ABNF<<RFC822 is 
 859+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Naming and addressing<<Formal name: RFC 822 allo
 860+ 03/19 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<On 3/19/96 at 12:56 PM, Da
 862+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       "for" clause<<At 10:40 AM 3/11/96, John Gardiner
 863+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       msg-id<<We need to have a globally-unique string
 864+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: "for" clause<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@branden
 865+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 11:34 AM 3/19/96, Pete 
 866+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: "for" clause<<At 12:38 PM 3/19/96, John Gard
 867+ 03/19 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> "postmaster" is both standar
 868+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: "for" clause<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@branden
 869+ 03/19 D. J. Bernstein    Re: lexical analyzer vs. parser vs. ABNF<<> Give
 870+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: allow <ext>?<<At 1:18 PM 3/19/96, D. J. Bern
 871+ 03/19 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> And we should make the "by" field 
 872+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Field structure<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bran
 873+ 03/19 Mark Crispin       Re: Field structure<<On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:07:0
 874+ 03/19 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> If an 822 address doesn't ma
 875+ 03/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Field structure<<Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washi
 876+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 2:54 PM 3/19/96, D. J. Bernstein 
 877+ 03/19 Dave Crocker       Re: Field structure<<At 3:07 PM 3/19/96, John Ga
 878+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<In poking through the DRUMS messages
 879+ 03/19 Ofer Inbar         space between header name and colon<<I used the 
 880+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "for" clause<<> > Having the envelope form o
 881+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: allow <ext>?<<> > "postmaster" is both stand
 882+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> > And we should make the "by" fiel
 883+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: Field structure<<> >None of Mpack, Cyrus IMA
 884+ 03/20 Robert Elz         Re: msg-id<<Date: 19 Mar 1996 22:54:24 GMT From:
 885+ 03/20 Eric Thomas        Re: msg-id<<I'm sorry but I can't agree with thi
 886+ 03/20 Paul Overell       Re: msg-id<<In article <199603200730.CAA01666@wi
 887+ 03/20 Jochen Friedrich   Re: msg-id<<Hi Dave, > We need to have a globall
 888+ 03/20 Robert Elz         Re: msg-id<<Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:24:04 EST 
 889+ 03/20 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:
 890+ 03/20 Robert Elz         Re: lexical analyzer vs. parser vs. ABNF<<Date: 
 891+ 03/20 Eric Thomas        Re: msg-id<<On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:24:01 +1100 R
 892+ 03/21 Robert Elz         Re: msg-id<<Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 13:51:21 EST 
 893+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> No it's not. Our charter cle
 894+ 03/20 Dave Barr          Re: msg-id<<In message <199603200730.CAA01666@wi
 895+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> Couldn't your SMTP server (or othe
 896+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 4:38 AM 3/20/96, Robert
 897+ 03/21 Robert Elz         Re: msg-id<<Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:53:13 -050
 898+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> I agree with doing that, a Receive
 899+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> This problem has arisen because RF
 900+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: Naming and addressing<<> > Formal name: > > 
 901+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: space between header name and colon<<> That 
 902+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 2:05 AM 3/20/96, Robert Elz wrote
 903+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 3:24 AM 3/20/96, Robert Elz wrote
 904+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 7:40 AM 3/20/96, D. J. Bernstein 
 905+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 7:36 AM 3/20/96, D. J. Bernstein 
 906+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: Naming and addressing<<At 7:57 AM 3/20/96, K
 907+ 03/20 Jim Conklin        Re: Naming and addressing<<At 10:57 AM 3/20/96 -
 908+ 03/20 Jim Conklin        Re: allow <ext>?<<At 3:40 PM 3/20/96 +0000, D. J
 909+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> In other words, Dan, the intent be
 910+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> > Your style of program design has
 911+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> ... which brings to mind a c
 912+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: msg-id<<Dave Barr writes [about IPv6 literal
 913+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: msg-id<<Robert Elz writes: > But I would adv
 914+ 03/20 Paul Overell       Re: Naming and addressing<<In article <199603201
 915+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: Naming and addressing<<At 3:21 AM 3/20/96, J
 916+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: allow <ext>?<<At 3:21 AM 3/20/96, Jim Conkli
 917+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 9:16 AM 3/20/96, D. J. Bernstein 
 918+ 03/20 Jim Conklin        Re: msg-id<<At 8:29 AM 3/20/96 -0800, Dave Crock
 919+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<Dan, At 9:36 AM 3/20/96, D. J. Berns
 920+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> In any event we need to ensure tha
 921+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 4:09 AM 3/20/96, Jim Conklin wrot
 922+ 03/20 Mark Crispin       Re: msg-id<<On 20 Mar 1996 17:16:21 GMT, D. J. B
 923+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: msg-id<<At 10:41 AM 3/20/96, D. J. Bernstein
 924+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> In a later message Keith said... >
 925+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:24:04 ES
 926+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> Date: > > In my opinion,
 927+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> > Couldn't your SMTP server (or ot
 928+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> But I would advise against stickin
 929+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Keith Moore writes: > MTAs
 930+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> It is not productive to > argue wi
 931+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> Defining the reference > term for 
 932+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> > In any event we need to ensure t
 933+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> > Keith Moore writes: > 
 934+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> but doesn't give a concrete basis 
 935+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: msg-id<<> I've never seen an MTA toss commen
 936+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Keith Moore writes: > That
 937+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> My laptop doesn't tell a
 938+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Keith Moore writes: > > My
 939+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> Actually, I very much wa
 940+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Keith Moore writes: > > > 
 941+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> "The mail system SHOULD 
 942+ 03/20 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<I agree with all your edit
 943+ 03/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: lexical analyzer vs. parser vs. ABNF<<dcrock
 944+ 03/20 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<On 3/20/96 at 3:39 PM, Per
 945+ 03/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: msg-id<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crock
 946+ 03/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: canonicalization and 822 vs. 821<<dcrocker@b
 947+ 03/20 John Gardiner Mye  Re: allow <ext>?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J
 948+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> That last edit is a prob
 949+ 03/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: allow <ext>?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J
 950+ 03/20 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Field structure<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.e
 951+ 03/20 Mark Crispin       Re: Field structure<<On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 17:39:1
 952+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> And how is something like <p
 953+ 03/20 D. J. Bernstein    loop detection<<> Well, we can't include your lo
 954+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: allow <ext>?<<jgm+@CMU.EDU (John Gardiner My
 955+ 03/20 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.  Re: timezones & Date<<On 20 Mar 1996 15:58:28 -0
 956+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: allow <ext>?<<> On the other hand, it _might
 957+ 03/20 Dave Crocker       Re: Field structure<<At 2:39 PM 3/20/96, John Ga
 958+ 03/20 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<On 3/20/96 at 3:55 PM, Per
 959+ 03/20 Pete Resnick       Multiple To: headers<<RFC 822, page 17, section 
 960+ 03/21 Keith Moore        Re: Field structure<<> > My suggested wording: >
 961+ 03/21 Eric Thomas        Re: Multiple To: headers<<On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 23
 962+ 03/21 Paul Overell       Re: timezones & Date<<In article <v0300570fad769
 963+ 03/21 Peter Sylvester    Re: timezones & Date<<MTA and MUA are functional
 964+ 03/21 Peter Sylvester    Re: timezones & Date<<Simply making text saying 
 965+ 03/21 Alan Barrett       Re: msg-id<<On 20 Mar 1996, D. J. Bernstein wrot
 966+ 03/21 Tim Goodwin        Re: msg-id<<> Sorry, Dave, but I don't think tha
 967+ 03/21 Dave Crocker       Re: Field structure<<At 11:32 PM 3/20/96, Keith 
 968+ 03/21 Dave Barr          Re: timezones & Date<<(As a side note I'd like t
 969+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<kre@munnari.oz.au (Robert 
 970+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: Field structure<<MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Crispin
 971+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: msg-id<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) wrote
 972+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: msg-id<<paulo@turnpike.com (Paul Overell) wr
 973+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> And *adding* a Return-Pa
 974+ 03/21 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 8:09 AM 3/21/96, Dave B
 975+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> If the recipient list is encoded i
 976+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Date: 08 Mar 1996 23:51:
 977+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: msg-id<<> There's more to this - identd iden
 978+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<paulo@turnpike.com (Paul O
 979+ 03/21 Dave Barr          Re: timezones & Date<<In message <v03005614ad774
 980+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> No "Apparently-To:" head
 981+ 03/21 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<On 3/21/96 at 10:09 AM, Da
 982+ 03/21 Pete Resnick       References line<<On 3/21/96 at 10:09 AM, Dave Ba
 983+ 03/21 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 10:37 AM 3/21/96, Dave 
 984+ 03/21 Chris Newman       Issues summary web page<<In an attempt to keep t
 985+ 03/21 Dave Crocker       who owns what headers?<<At 12:18 PM 3/21/96, Pet
 986+ 03/21 Chris Newman       Re: Field structure<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM
 987+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> Allow "<ext>" in 
 988+ 03/21 Pete Resnick       Message-IDs (not Received lines) (Was: Issues su
 989+ 03/21 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message-IDs (not Received lines) (Was: Issue
 990+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: msg-id<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bern
 991+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (
 992+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> > this sort of feature b
 993+ 03/21 Mark Crispin       Re: Field structure<<On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:49:2
 994+ 03/21 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<On 3/21/96 at 8:12 PM, D. 
 995+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> I can be pretty sure tha
 996+ 03/21 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<My *deepest* apologies. I 
 997+ 03/21 Mark Crispin       Re: timezones & Date<<On 22 Mar 1996 02:12:34 GM
 998+ 03/21 Mark Crispin       Re: timezones & Date<<On 22 Mar 1996 03:45:16 GM
 999+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> The time zone is necessa
1000+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> There is no evidence to 
1001+ 03/21 Mark Crispin       Re: timezones & Date<<On 22 Mar 1996 05:31:10 GM
1002+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> This is a reason for why
1003+ 03/21 Mark Crispin       Re: timezones & Date<<On 22 Mar 1996, D. J. Bern
1004+ 03/21 Dave Crocker       Re: Issues summary web page<<At 2:55 PM 3/21/96,
1005+ 03/22 Keith Moore        Re: Field structure<<> Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.C
1006+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Re: timezones & Date<<Mark, this is getting a li
1007+ 03/22 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Multiple To: headers<<The single use I've se
1008+ 03/22 Keith Moore        Re: Issues summary web page<<> > Allow "<ext>" i
1009+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<Dave Crocker writes
1010+ 03/22 Keith Moore        Re: Issues summary web page<<> I've written plen
1011+ 03/22 Tim Goodwin        Re: timezones & Date<<> We should certainly not 
1012+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<Keith Moore writes:
1013+ 03/22 Dave Crocker       Re: Issues summary web page<<At 12:48 AM 3/22/96
1014+ 03/22 Chris Newman       Re: Issues summary web page<<djb@koobera.math.ui
1015+ 03/22 Chris Newman       "." in phrase<<I see three directions to go to d
1016+ 03/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (
1017+ 03/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: Field structure<<MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU (Mar
1018+ 03/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues summary web page<<djb@koobera.math.ui
1019+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<I had forgotten exactly wh
1020+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    address syntax<<Here is a replacement for Keith'
1021+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> 1. make `Date:' optional
1022+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> If it is actually
1023+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> In LA there was s
1024+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> 1) Re-write the grammar to 
1025+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Note that this was prima
1026+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> In fact, I certai
1027+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> local-part = [word] 1*("."
1028+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1029+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1030+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<I would like to see
1031+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1032+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1033+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> In mail->news gat
1034+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1035+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> Usenet has long h
1036+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1037+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1038+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> So far all you've
1039+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1040+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1041+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> If I want to conf
1042+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> So is all of Inte
1043+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1044+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> Why aren't they? 
1045+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> It makes no sense
1046+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> > How easily: utt
1047+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1048+ 03/22 Dave Barr          Re: Issues summary web page<<In message <1996032
1049+ 03/22 "michael (m.) har  Re: Issues summary<<> ... (additional issues for
1050+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Message-ID: Regroup<<Let's all hold on there a s
1051+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> So you're saying 
1052+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary<<> In fact, it might even be 
1053+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1054+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1055+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1056+ 03/22 Michael D'Errico   Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<> b) We should definite
1057+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1058+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<> I take it (and correc
1059+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<On 3/22/96 at 4:03 PM, 
1060+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> It is not a secur
1061+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> Cut and paste the
1062+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<D. J. Bernstein writes:
1063+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> Do you have any o
1064+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<On 3/22/96 at 4:22 PM, 
1065+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1066+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<> Ease of identificatio
1068+ 03/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Issues summary web page<<D. J. Bernstein wri
1069+ 03/22 ckk@uchicago.edu   Condemning user replies going to envelope sender
1070+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> How could he "rel
1071+ 03/23 Eric Thomas        Re: Condemning user replies going to envelope se
1072+ 03/22 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> I mean, come on! 
1073+ 03/23 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Condemning user replies going to envelope se
1074+ 03/23 Eric Thomas        Re: Issues summary web page<<I'm sorry for oppos
1075+ 03/23 Eric Thomas        Re: Issues summary web page<<Listen, Could we sp
1076+ 03/23 Richard Clayton    Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<In article <19960322233
1077+ 03/23 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<> If you are threading 
1078+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> I see three directions to g
1079+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> I think it suffices to s
1080+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: address syntax<<> Here is a replacement for 
1081+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> > 1. make `Date:' option
1082+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Issues summary web page<<> > In LA there was
1083+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Issues summary web page<<> > In fact, I cert
1084+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> I'd far rather have an una
1085+ 03/23 Keith Moore        from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be pres
1086+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Condemning user replies going to envelope se
1087+ 03/23 Keith Moore        from the Chair: The message-id discussion is clo
1088+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Issues summary web page<<> > > In LA there w
1089+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: address syntax<<> > I'd far rather have an u
1090+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1091+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> Most implementors are goin
1092+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1093+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: address syntax<<> > Most implementors are go
1094+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> Note that left-to-right pa
1095+ 03/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU (Ma
1096+ 03/23 Keith Moore        address syntax<<I think the address syntax discu
1097+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> a) dots will be allowed in
1098+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:
1099+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> I changed my mailer (MTA
1100+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: address syntax<<Date: 24 Mar 1996 01:08:09 G
1101+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 24 Mar 1996 07:07:13
1102+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: address syntax<<> I'm not sure who you're re
1103+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Can't be done, a paralle
1104+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 24 Mar 1996 07:23:27
1105+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> You mean deliberately fu
1106+ 03/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> It's clearer to state in
1107+ 03/24 Alan Barrett       Re: Issues summary web page<<> But what he and t
1108+ 03/24 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:51:
1109+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 24 Mar 1996 08:57:22
1110+ 03/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Condemning user replies going to envelope se
1111+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> It's clearer to state in
1112+ 03/24 Michael D'Errico   Re: timezones & Date<<> x.y.z Date header field 
1113+ 03/24 Dave Crocker       Re: Message-ID: Regroup<<At 3:02 PM 3/22/96, Pet
1114+ 03/24 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 9:10 AM 3/22/96, Chris New
1115+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> >4) Re-write the grammar to
1116+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> >2) Remove "." from special
1117+ 03/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1118+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1119+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> me too, absent any showstop
1120+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> (I've already posted change
1121+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> It is not possible to (1) p
1122+ 03/25 Keith Moore        from the Chair: The '"." in phrase' topic is clo
1123+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> > It is not possible to (1)
1124+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: from the Chair: The '"." in phrase' topic is
1125+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: from the Chair: The '"." in phrase' topic is
1126+ 03/25 Jochen Friedrich   Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1127+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: "." in phrase<<Date: 25 Mar 1996 06:29:03 GM
1128+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:
1129+ 03/25 Tim Goodwin        Re: from the Chair: The message-id discussion is
1130+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1131+ 03/25 Jochen Friedrich   Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1132+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1133+ 03/25 Dave Barr          Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1134+ 03/25 Jochen Friedrich   Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1135+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1136+ 03/25 Peter Sylvester    Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1137+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1138+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: from the Chair: The '"." in phrase' topic is
1139+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1140+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> The date should reflect 
1141+ 03/25 Eric Thomas        Re: from the Chair: The '"." in phrase' topic is
1142+ 03/25 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<For what it's worth, I've 
1143+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> > The date should reflec
1144+ 03/25 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<I'm not sure I agree that,
1145+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Fine in principle, but w
1146+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Domain literals<<I propose we change the grammar
1147+ 03/25 Pete Resnick       Headers and agents<<First, on the previous topic
1148+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> > Fine in principle, but
1149+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: Domain literals<<> I propose we change the g
1150+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> First, on the previous
1151+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> - MSA or "mail submiss
1152+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Headers and agents<<Keith Moore writes: > > 
1153+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<[ #1 = actual time; #2 = l
1154+ 03/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> domain ::= domain-name / 
1155+ 03/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1156+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:59:
1157+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Domain literals<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > >
1158+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> > There have always been 
1159+ 03/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: timezones & Date<<> Problem is, this means t
1160+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> It's somewhat of a kludg
1161+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<I don't see why anyone eve
1162+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> I don't see why anyone e
1163+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1164+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> What was said was simply
1165+ 03/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1166+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> I would think that the t
1167+ 03/25 Der Postmeister    Re: "." in phrase<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz
1168+ 03/26 Paul Overell       Re: Headers and agents<<In article <v03005b05ad7
1169+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:42:
1170+ 03/26 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Headers and agents<<One more paragraph neede
1171+ 03/26 Harald.T.Alvestra  Strawman: An SMTP extension for message submissi
1172+ 03/26 Jochen Friedrich   Re: Headers and agents<<Hi Harald, > - The name 
1173+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1174+ 03/26 Keith Moore        ADMIN: DRUMS list now available in digest format
1175+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > I'm 
1176+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:05:
1177+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Domain literals<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1178+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:5
1179+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: timezones & Date<<The problem situations we 
1180+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > On T
1181+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> > I don't see why anyone
1182+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> Compatibility with what? 
1183+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:28:
1184+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> 1) GMT time is known, bu
1185+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > On T
1186+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1187+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> The rules for determinin
1188+ 03/26 Dave Barr          Re: timezones & Date<<In message <199603262039.P
1189+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> > > 1) GMT time is known
1190+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1191+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1192+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:49:
1193+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> No, Dan, not in other wo
1194+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > On T
1195+ 03/26 Dave Barr          Re: timezones & Date<<(this is a reply to a mess
1196+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:07:
1197+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Domain literals<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1198+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > 
1199+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > On T
1200+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> > My position is that eve
1201+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Domain literals<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > >
1202+ 03/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> Poll: Let's try an honest
1203+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Domain literals<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1204+ 03/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<perry@piermont.com (Perry 
1205+ 03/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<perry@piermont.com (Perr
1206+ 03/26 Eric Thomas        Re: timezones & Date<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:56:
1207+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Domain literals<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1208+ 03/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Domain literals<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:24:1
1209+ 03/27 Robert Elz         Re: Domain literals<<Date: 26 Mar 1996 22:37:21 
1210+ 03/26 Erik Forsberg      RE: Domain literals<<Well, my opinion is that th
1211+ 03/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: timezones & Date<<Eric Thomas writes: > >If 
1212+ 03/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Domain literals<<On 26 Mar 1996 22:37:21 GMT
1213+ 03/26 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: Domain literals<<In message <199603262321.SA
1214+ 03/27 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:
1215+ 03/26 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 9:24 AM 3/26/96, Joch
1216+ 03/26 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 4:17 PM 3/25/96, Pete
1217+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: Domain literals<<> > > My position is that e
1218+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: Domain literals<<> Question: Should 822bis a
1219+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> Here's a question: Do 
1220+ 03/26 Michael D'Errico   Re: Headers and agents<<> I'm not sure how best 
1221+ 03/26 Pete Resnick       Re: Headers and agents<<On 3/26/96 at 8:35 PM, M
1222+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> > and (b) document the
1223+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> Now, we can go ahead a
1224+ 03/26 Michael D'Errico   Re: Headers and agents<<> > > and (b) document t
1225+ 03/26 Michael D'Errico   Re: Headers and agents<<> I think I'm willing to
1226+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<> Does *anyone* on this lis
1227+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Domain literals<<[ presuming that . is remov
1228+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> Mailing lists are thei
1229+ 03/27 Olle Jarnefors     Re: timezones & Date<<Here are my ideas about th
1230+ 03/27 Tim Goodwin        Re: Headers and agents<<Dave Crocker writes: > S
1231+ 03/27 Chris Newman       Re: Headers and agents<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.ut
1232+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Domain literals<<> > local-part = word > > T
1233+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> No, they're not. They'
1234+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> We have two conflictin
1235+ 03/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Headers and agents<<On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10:4
1236+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 8:54 PM 3/26/96, Keit
1237+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 11:53 PM 3/26/96, D. 
1238+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       MSA/MDA proposal<<Horns of a dilemma. I am more 
1239+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 3:23 AM 3/27/96, Olle J
1240+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 2:28 AM 3/25/96, Robert El
1241+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 8:53 PM 3/24/96, Keith Moo
1242+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 5:48 AM 3/27/96, Tim 
1243+ 03/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Domain literals<<At 1:20 PM 3/25/96, Chris N
1244+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<> Or else we need to discu
1245+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> The point in question about
1246+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> This line of effort, to 
1247+ 03/27 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: Headers and agents<<A maybe goofy, maybe use
1248+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 10
1249+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> At 8:54 PM 3/26/96, Ke
1250+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<> You might say that we de
1251+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: timezones & Date<<> At 3:23 AM 3/27/96, Olle
1252+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> Unless I'm missing somethin
1253+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> the token-based model cause
1254+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> you must rewrite the e
1255+ 03/27 Pete Resnick       Re: Headers and agents<<On 3/27/96 at 2:03 PM, D
1256+ 03/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (Eric
1257+ 03/27 Eric Thomas        Re: Headers and agents<<On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:0
1258+ 03/27 Pete Resnick       Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<On 3/27/96 at 10:06 AM, Da
1259+ 03/27 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: Headers and agents<<> On Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14
1260+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Of course, this still me
1261+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> Recipients as such do 
1262+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> > you must rewrite the
1263+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> I'm not sure what is t
1264+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> I agree that post-deli
1265+ 03/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> I suppose it wouldn't 
1266+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> > I suppose it wouldn'
1267+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> > They're more than ju
1268+ 03/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodw
1269+ 03/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com (
1270+ 03/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> > > I suppose it would
1271+ 03/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> mailing lists have to 
1272+ 03/27 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: Headers and agents<<In message <65gIVtaEcsB@
1273+ 03/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> > The right solution i
1274+ 03/27 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Headers and agents<<Kai Henningsen writes: >
1275+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> Clearly the intention 
1276+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<> Lately I seem to be se
1277+ 03/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> > Lately I seem to be 
1278+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: Headers and agents<<(regarding messages with
1279+ 03/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<I don't think I've ever 
1280+ 03/27 Pete Resnick       The revisted Resent-* discussion<<On 3/27/96 at 
1281+ 03/28 Paul Overell       Re: timezones & Date<<In article <v03005b08ad7f1
1282+ 03/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Headers and agents<<On 3/27/96 at 10:17 PM, 
1283+ 03/28 Dave Crocker       Null return fields<<At 2:42 PM 3/27/96, Keith Mo
1284+ 03/28 Dave Crocker       Upgrading the model<<At 11:15 AM 3/27/96, Keith 
1285+ 03/28 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<Folks, At 10:29 AM 3/27/96
1286+ 03/28 Dave Crocker       Re: The revisted Resent-* discussion<<This isn't
1287+ 03/28 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: The revisted Resent-* discussion<<Dave Crock
1288+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 07:
1289+ 03/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Please don't legitimize 
1290+ 03/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> But it will fail to note
1291+ 03/28 Jim Conklin        Re: Domain literals<<At 10:37 PM 3/26/96 +0000, 
1292+ 03/28 Jim Conklin        Re: Headers and agents<<At 9:08 PM 3/26/96 -0500
1293+ 03/28 Jim Conklin        Re: Headers and agents<<At 11:54 PM 3/26/96 -050
1295+ 03/28 Dave Crocker       Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<At 1:18 PM 3/27/96, Pete R
1296+ 03/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: Upgrading the model<<dcrocker@brandenburg.co
1297+ 03/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null return fields<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com
1298+ 03/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu
1299+ 03/29 Tim Goodwin        Re: Headers and agents<<> > > I suppose it would
1300+ 03/29 John C Klensin     Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<At 14:25 3/27/96 -0500, Ke
1301+ 03/29 John C Klensin     Re: Domain literals<<At 10:39 3/27/96 -0500, Kei
1302+ 03/29 John C Klensin     Re: Strawman: An SMTP extension for message subm
1303+ 03/29 Dave Barr          Re: Headers and agents<<In message <199603282250
1304+ 03/29 Jim Conklin        Re: Headers and agents<<At 5:00 PM 3/27/96 +0100
1305+ 03/29 Jim Conklin        Re: Headers and agents<<At 2:03 PM 3/27/96 -0500
1306+ 03/29 Dave Crocker       Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<At 4:35 AM 3/29/96, John C
1307+ 03/29 Dave Crocker       Re: Null return fields<<At 11:36 AM 3/28/96, Kai
1308+ 03/29 Jim Conklin        Re: Upgrading the model<<At 7:56 AM 3/28/96 -080
1309+ 03/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> An envelope sender of 
1310+ 03/29 ckk@uchicago.edu   transformations, Re: Headers and agents<<>At 2:0
1311+ 03/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Upgrading the model<<> Personal user agents 
1312+ 03/29 Jim Conklin        Re: Headers and agents<<At 4:20 PM 3/28/96 -0800
1313+ 03/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<> If the right bits go out
1314+ 03/29 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 4:10 AM 3/29/96, Jim 
1315+ 03/30 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<: What if mailinglist-ow
1316+ 03/31 Peter Sylvester    Re: Headers and agents<<And why not simply this 
1317+ 03/31 Ofer Inbar         Re: Headers and agents<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@b
1318+ 03/31 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<I agree with Mike D'Erri
1319+ 03/31 Dave Crocker       Re: Headers and agents<<At 5:53 AM 3/31/96, Pete
1320+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Date semantics<<I've attached proposed language,
1321+ 03/31 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:11:34 
1322+ 03/31 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:13:19 
1323+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> Actually, I don't think tha
1324+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> We are over-engineering her
1325+ 03/31 Pete Resnick       Re: Date semantics<<On 3/31/96 at 6:38 PM, D. J.
1326+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    compatibility<<> RFC822 has had several incompat
1327+ 03/31 Mark Crispin       Re: Domain literals<<On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:04:3
1328+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<Bernstein: Do not get involve
1329+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       re: compatibility<<On 1 Apr 1996 04:32:22 -0000,
1330+ 03/31 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 7:25 PM 3/31/96, Mark Cris
1331+ 04/01 Dave Barr          Re: "." in phrase<<In message <19960401041245.37
1332+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       re: compatibility<<At 2:48 AM 4/1/96, Mark Crisp
1333  04/01*                   <<zone = ( ("+" / "-") 4DIGIT ) / ( ["-"] (1ALPH
1334+ 04/01 Chris Newman       Re: "." in phrase<<I took a quick peek at RFC 73
1335+ 04/01 Chris Newman       re: compatibility<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> 
1336+ 04/01 bmanning@isi.edu   Re: compatibility<<Interesting discussion. As a 
1338+ 04/01 Chris Newman       Military Timezones<<I propose we expunge the gra
1339+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 7:37 AM 4/1/96, Dave Barr 
1340+ 04/01 Chris Newman       Timezones<<I just got a cool idea about how to d
1341+ 04/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodw
1342+ 04/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null return fields<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com
1343+ 04/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: "." in phrase<<MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) 
1344+ 04/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu
1345+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> It also permits the externa
1346+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> If that's all that breaks t
1347+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> And I still think it might 
1348+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> What does "routed corr
1349+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Timezones<<> zone ::= 1*ALPHA / ( ("+" / "-"
1350+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> Just what impact will remov
1351+ 04/01 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.  Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<In following th
1352+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<> I also th
1353+ 04/01 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.  Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<On 1 Apr 19
1354+ 04/01 Eric Thomas        Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<On 01 APR 9
1355+ 04/01 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:13:1
1356+ 04/01 Keith Moore        Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<> I also th
1357+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:35:02 
1358+ 04/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> The problem, then, isn't to
1359+ 04/01 Keith Moore        Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<> On 01 APR
1360+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Mon, 01 Apr 1996 18:13:34 
1361+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       re: Military Timezones<<On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:50
1362+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<> 1. I'm no
1363+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> From: John Q. Public <j.q.p
1364+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> This sounds like an excelle
1365+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996 00:40:54 -0000,
1366+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> I made a quick check > of s
1367+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996 00:49:17 -0000,
1368+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Timezones<<At 9:09 AM 4/1/96, Chris Newman w
1369+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 8:40 AM 4/1/96, Chris Newm
1370+ 04/01 Chris "<can@you,r  generating RFC 822 addresses<<It's clear we need
1371+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> You made up this header, di
1372+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<> 1) If a give
1373+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 3:13 PM 4/1/96, Keith Moor
1374+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Military Timezones<<At 8:50 AM 4/1/96, Chris
1375+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Null return fields<<At 8:32 AM 4/1/96, Kai H
1376+ 04/01 Pete Resnick       Re: Military Timezones<<On 4/1/96 at 10:29 PM, D
1377+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996 04:16:19 -0000,
1378+ 04/01 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:40:02 -
1379+ 04/02 Keith Moore        Re: "." in phrase<<> On Mon, 01 Apr 1996 18:13:3
1380+ 04/01 Dave Crocker       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<At 8:47 PM 4/1
1381+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> 2) why would someone go to 
1382+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<> comment form
1383+ 04/02 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Null return fields<<> >And saying "I don't w
1384+ 04/02 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996, D. J. Bernstei
1385+ 04/02 Eric Thomas        Re: "." in phrase<<On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:20:23 -
1386+ 04/02 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 6:40 AM 4/2/96, Eric Thoma
1387+ 04/02 Eric Thomas        Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<On Mon, 01 
1388+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> Where's your proof. I alrea
1389+ 04/02 Tim Goodwin        Re: Headers and agents<<> There is absolutely no
1390+ 04/02 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996 16:47:33 -0000,
1391+ 04/03 Robert Elz         Re: "." in phrase<<I'm sure a thousand people ca
1392+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> but since you didn't report
1393+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> To: dcrocker(is the local p
1394+ 04/02 Dave Barr          Re: Headers and agents<<In message <AAAOfzFhXe4A
1395+ 04/02 Chris Newman       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<djb@koobera.ma
1396+ 04/02 Chris Newman       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<djb@koobera.ma
1397+ 04/02 Chris Newman       legal 822, illegal 822bis<<I strongly disagree w
1398+ 04/03 Robert Elz         Re: "." in phrase<<Date: 2 Apr 1996 18:38:34 -00
1399+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<> 1) The legal 82
1400+ 04/02 Jim Conklin        Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<At 1:53 PM 4/2
1401+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> I searched only the "addres
1402+ 04/02 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On 2 Apr 1996 18:28:50 -0000,
1403+ 04/02 Pete Resnick       Re: "." in phrase<<On 4/2/96 at 3:37 PM, D. J. B
1404+ 04/02 Chris Newman       Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<djb@koobera.math.
1405+ 04/02 Chris Newman       Re: "." in phrase<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. 
1406+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> 10 instances is not enough 
1407+ 04/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<> Requiring new i
1408+ 04/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> All mail from this lis
1409+ 04/02 Dave Barr          Re: Headers and agents<<In message <199604030050
1410+ 04/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> Not a problem if you c
1411+ 04/02 Dave Crocker       Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<This is quite a g
1412+ 04/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<> Do we want to g
1413+ 04/02 Dave Crocker       Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<At 1:49 PM 
1414+ 04/01 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Strawman: An SMTP extension for message subm
1415+ 04/03 Olle Jarnefors     Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<Chris Newman w
1416+ 04/03 Olle Jarnefors     Meaningful addresses for not English-dominated c
1417+ 04/03 Dave Crocker       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<At 10:53 AM 4/
1418+ 04/03 Dave Crocker       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<At 11:00 PM 4/
1419+ 04/03 Chris Newman       Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<Olle Jarnefors
1420+ 04/03 Keith Moore        Re: Meaningful addresses for not English-dominat
1421+ 04/03 Keith Moore        Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<> I have found
1422+ 04/03 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be 
1423+ 04/03 Keith Moore        Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<> Keith (and Dave), > > I 
1424+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu
1425+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<dcrocker@br
1426+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: "." in phrase<<MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) 
1427+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<tim@pipex.net (Tim Goodw
1428+ 04/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<> The advantag
1429+ 04/03 Dave Crocker       Re: MSA/MDA proposal<<At 10:32 AM 4/3/96, Keith 
1430+ 04/04 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> > > Having bounces go 
1431+ 04/04 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null return fields<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com
1432+ 04/04 Dave Crocker       Re: Null return fields<<At 11:23 PM 4/3/96, Kai 
1433+ 04/04 Chris Newman       Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<djb@koobera.math.
1434+ 04/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: legal 822, illegal 822bis<<> 1) <foo."bar"@b
1435+ 04/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null return fields<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com
1436+ 04/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fa
1437+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: Null Return Path -and- Resent-*<<At 14:40 96
1438+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: "." in phrase<<At 20:20 96.04.01 -0800, Dave
1439+ 04/05 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 7:16 AM 4/5/96, John C Kle
1440+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: "." in phrase<<At 07:33 96.04.05 -0800, Dave
1441+ 04/05 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Fri, 05 Apr 1996 10:16:38 
1442+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: "." in phrase<<At 12:15 96.04.05 -0800, Mark
1443+ 04/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> > Let me ask you...is it va
1444+ 04/05 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Fri, 05 Apr 1996 15:36:49 
1445+ 04/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> A local system is certainly
1446+ 04/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> > > > > Having bounces
1447+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: timezones & Date<<At 10:43 3/27/96 +1100, Ro
1448+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: "." in phrase<<At 13:11 96.04.05 -0800, Mark
1449+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: generating RFC 822 addresses<<At 22:38 96.04
1450+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: timezones & Date<<At 13:34 3/24/96 -0500, Ke
1451+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: "." in phrase<<At 21:44 96.04.05 +0000, D. J
1452+ 04/05 Ofer Inbar         Re: timezones & Date<<klensin@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.N
1453+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> Obvious interpretations asi
1454+ 04/05 Mark Crispin       Re: "." in phrase<<On Fri, 05 Apr 1996 19:02:17 
1455+ 04/06 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 19:
1456+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 4:02 PM 4/5/96, John C 
1457+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 4:03 PM 4/5/96, John C 
1458+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 12:03 PM 4/5/96, John C Kl
1459+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 08:3
1460+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 08:3
1461+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Speak of the devil...<<Happened to be checking m
1462+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: "." in phrase<<Date: 5 Apr 1996 21:44:48 -00
1463+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: "." in phrase<<> There are no laws here, sys
1465+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 10:59 AM 4/6/96, Robert
1466+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 10:53 AM 4/6/96, Robert
1467+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: "." in phrase<<Date: 6 Apr 1996 19:45:36 -00
1468+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<What about ``last modifica
1469+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:4
1470+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 6 Apr 1996 20:30:35 
1471+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 6 Apr 1996 20:30:35 
1472+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<At 12:30 PM 4/6/96, D. J. 
1473+ 04/06 Dave Crocker       Re: Null return fields<<At 1:02 AM 4/5/96, Kai H
1474+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Hmm - most articles I se
1475+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> This mean that if I fini
1476+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 6 Apr 1996 21:31:26 
1477+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> it is > meaningless to d
1478+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: 6 Apr 1996 22:50:18 
1479+ 04/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: timezones & Date<<> Fine, but "sorting" is m
1480+ 04/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fa
1481+ 04/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: "." in phrase<<klensin@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET 
1483+ 04/07 Peter Sylvester    Re: timezones & Date<<There is actually a propos
1484+ 04/07 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> Because it's bad desig
1485+ 04/07 Peter Sylvester    Re: Headers and agents<<Would you mind stopping 
1486+ 04/07 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> It seems that you have
1487+ 04/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: Headers and agents<<RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fa
1488+ 04/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (
1489+ 04/08 Eric Thomas        Re: Headers and agents<<If we are seriously goin
1490+ 04/07 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Headers and agents<<> Just suppose your boun
1491+ 04/08 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Headers and agents<<> Just suppose your boun
1492+ 04/08 Dave Barr          Re: timezones & Date<<In message <v03005b07ad8c7
1493+ 04/09 Paul Overell       Re: timezones & Date<<In article <2.2.16.1996040
1494+ 04/09 Chris Newman       Re: "." in phrase<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. 
1495+ 04/09 Chris Newman       Re: timezones & Date<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bra
1496+ 04/09 Dave Crocker       Thread and date/time<<This will probably turn in
1497+ 04/09 Dave Crocker       Re: timezones & Date<<Folks, I sent out an infor
1498+ 04/09 Dave Crocker       Re: "." in phrase<<At 2:06 PM 4/9/96, Chris Newm
1499+ 04/09 Ofer Inbar         Re: timezones & Date<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bra
1500+ 04/10 D. J. Bernstein    new date draft<<This draft takes the following p
1501+ 04/10 Paul Overell       Re: new date draft<<One syntax bug fix and a few
1502+ 04/10 Robert Elz         Re: Thread and date/time<<Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 
1503+ 04/10 Robert Elz         Re: timezones & Date<<Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:4
1504+ 04/10 Robert Elz         Re: new date draft<<Date: 10 Apr 1996 07:02:37 -
1505+ 04/10 Robert Elz         Re: new date draft<<Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:54
1506+ 04/10 Dave Crocker       Re: Thread and date/time<<At 4:38 AM 4/10/96, Ro
1507+ 04/10 Jim Conklin        Re: Thread and date/time<<At 6:43 PM 4/9/96 -070
1508+ 04/10 D. J. Bernstein    Re: new date draft<<> To conform, any > mailer w
1509+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Name of RFC822bis<<While all other Internet stan
1510+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Headings, Headers and Heading/Header Fields<<The
1511+ 04/11 John Beck          Re: Headings, Headers and Heading/Header Fields<
1512+ 04/11 Chris Newman       Re: Name of RFC822bis<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.s
1513+ 04/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Name of RFC822bis<<At 2:01 PM 4/11/96, Chris
1514+ 04/12 Jacob Palme        Are messages with the same Message-ID identical?
1515+ 04/12 Jacob Palme        Mandatory generation of Message-ID-s<<Since a re
1516+ 04/12 Jim Conklin        Re: Mandatory generation of Message-ID-s<<At 9:5
1517+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: timezones & Date<<barr@math.psu.edu (Dave Ba
1518+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null return fields<<Note: this is my last re
1519+ 04/13 Kai Henningsen     Character set issues<<821/822 contain two design
1520+ 04/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Character set issues<<> It's probably time f
1521+ 04/14 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: Name of RFC822bis<<My dictionary says that "
1522+ 04/14 Mark Crispin       Re: Name of RFC822bis<<On 14 Apr 96 10:03:11+020
1523+ 04/14 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Character set issues<<Kai Henningsen wrote i
1524+ 04/14 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Character set issues<<Kai Henningsen wrote i
1526+ 04/15 Chris Newman       Re: Character set issues<<kai@khms.westfalen.de 
1527+ 04/15 Chris Newman       Re: Character set issues<<djb@koobera.math.uic.e
1528+ 04/15 Keith Moore        FROM THE DRUMS CHAIR: MONTREAL MEETING<<This is 
1529+ 04/15 Dave Crocker       Re: FROM THE DRUMS CHAIR: MONTREAL MEETING<<At 5
1530+ 04/16 Chris Newman       Re: FROM THE DRUMS CHAIR: MONTREAL MEETING<<Dave
1531+ 04/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: Character set issues<<chrisn+@CMU.EDU (Chris
1532+ 04/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: Character set issues<<ojarnef@admin.kth.se (
1533+ 05/04 Dave Crocker       MailConnect 1: Interoperability Event for MIME a
1534+ 05/07 D. J. Bernstein    utc vs. tai<<I suggest replacing UTC with TAI in
1535+ 05/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: utc vs. tai<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > I sug
1536+ 05/08 D. J. Bernstein    Re: utc vs. tai<<> UTC is the time base for all 
1537+ 05/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: utc vs. tai<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > > UTC
1538+ 05/08 D. J. Bernstein    Re: utc vs. tai<<> Thirty seconds off wall clock
1539+ 05/12 Dave Crocker       Welcome to Mailconnect 1 Discussions<<This is an
1540+ 05/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Welcome to Mailconnect 1 Discussions<<At 4:2
1541+ 05/13 majordomo@imc.org  Majordomo results<<-- >>>> unsubscribe imc-mailc
1542+ 05/21 John C Klensin     821bis outstanding issues list<<--==============
1543+ 05/21 Peter Sylvester    Blanks in quoted strings<<Hi, I would like to he
1544+ 05/22 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Blanks in quoted strings<<Peter Sylvester <P
1545+ 05/22 Olle Jarnefors     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<John C Klens
1546+ 05/22 Internet-Drafts@C  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-02.txt<<--Ne
1547+ 05/22 Dave Crocker       A name for Internet mail<<Folks, In previous dis
1548+ 05/22 Jeff MAURY         RE: A name for Internet mail<<---------- De : Da
1549+ 05/22 Ofer Inbar         Re: A name for Internet mail<<> I did a single-s
1550+ 05/22 John C Klensin     Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 07:56 96.05.22 
1551+ 05/22 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 01:07 96.
1552+ 05/22 Dave Crocker       Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 8:43 AM -0700 5
1553+ 05/22 Mark Crispin       Re: A name for Internet mail<<The problem with t
1554+ 05/22 Paul Hoffman       Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 11:36 AM -0700 
1555+ 05/22 "Roger Fajman"     Re: A name for Internet mail<<> I did a single-s
1556+ 05/23 Jim Conklin        Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 11:43 AM 5/22/9
1557+ 05/23 MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB  Re: A name for Internet mail<<Well, if I-Mail is
1558+ 05/23 Peter Sylvester    Re: A name for Internet mail<<I'm just reading: 
1559+ 05/23 Keith Moore        From the ex-Chair: we have a new Chair!<<I'm ple
1560+ 05/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: A name for Internet mail<<conklin@info.cren.
1561+ 05/23 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: A name for Internet mail<<In message <69RMj2
1562+ 05/23 Dave Crocker       Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 11:29 AM -0700 
1563+ 05/24 "Alan K.K. Kong"   Re: A name for Internet mail<<How about INetMail
1564+ 05/23 Dave Crocker       APIs for Internet Mail<<(There is no obvious, si
1565+ 05/24 "Cyrus Chow"       subscibe
1566+ 05/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: A name for Internet mail<<MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB.
1567+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> clients MU
1568+ 05/24 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<In message <
1569+ 05/24 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 19:41 96.
1570+ 05/24 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> > clients 
1571+ 05/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Keith Moore 
1572+ 05/24 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> >Received 
1573+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Is your qu
1574+ 05/24 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 15:02 96.
1575+ 05/24 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 16:06 96.
1576+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> While we k
1577+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Or is this
1578+ 05/24 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.  Re: APIs for Internet Mail<<On 23 May 1996 22:24
1579+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Besides, t
1580+ 05/24 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> > Is your 
1581+ 05/24 ckk@uchicago.edu   Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<In message <
1582+ 05/24 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> > While we
1583+ 05/24 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On 24 May 19
1584+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Several mont
1585+ 05/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> > Yes. Joh
1586+ 05/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: A name for Internet mail<<dcrocker@brandenbu
1587+ 05/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: A name for Internet mail<<> The naming probl
1588+ 05/24 Dave Crocker       Re: A name for Internet mail<<At 1:41 PM -0700 5
1589+ 05/25 John C Klensin     Re: APIs for Internet Mail<<On Fri, 24 May 1996 
1590+ 05/25 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Fri, 24 M
1591+ 05/25 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Fri, 24 M
1592+ 05/25 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> the client
1593+ 05/25 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 15:22 5/2
1594+ 05/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<D. J. Bernst
1595+ 05/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<ckk@uchicago
1596+ 05/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<ckk@uchicago
1597+ 05/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<klensin@mail
1598+ 05/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> It would s
1599+ 05/26 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Delivered-
1600+ 05/26 Eric Thomas        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Fri, 24 M
1601+ 05/26 Eric Thomas        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Fri, 24 M
1602+ 05/26 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> >If we sta
1603+ 05/26 Eric Thomas        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Sun, 26 M
1604+ 05/26 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> On Sun, 26
1605+ 05/27 Paul Hoffman       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<At 8:52 PM -
1606+ 05/27 Ofer Inbar         Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Paul Hoffman
1607+ 05/27 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<What I've fo
1608+ 05/27 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> I think it
1609+ 05/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> > I think 
1610+ 05/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> What I've 
1611+ 05/28 ruth moulton       Re: APIs for Internet Mail<<Dave, (There is no o
1612+ 05/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<djb@koobera.
1613+ 05/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> That's pro
1614+ 05/29 Robert Elz         Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Date: 28 May
1615+ 05/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Manuractur
1616+ 05/29 Robert Elz         Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Date: 28 May
1617+ 05/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Further, w
1618+ 05/28 Eric Thomas        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On Wed, 29 M
1619+ 05/29 Robert Elz         Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Date: 28 May
1620+ 05/28 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<On 5/28/96 a
1621+ 05/28 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Empirical 
1622+ 05/28 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> When it is
1623+ 05/28 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Now you're
1624+ 05/30 John C Klensin     Requiring VRFY (was: Re: 821bis outstanding issu
1625+ 05/30 Chris Newman       DRUMS agenda, 1st draft<<The DRUMS WG is tentati
1626+ 05/30 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<John, we hav
1627+ 05/31 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> (And Dan's
1628+ 06/01 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<Only a limit
1629+ 06/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list<<> Only a lim
1630+ 06/03 D. J. Bernstein    incorrect MX handling<<Anybody else get a bounce
1631+ 06/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: incorrect MX handling<<djb@koobera.math.uic.
1632+ 06/04 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: incorrect MX handling<<There are two relevan
1633+ 06/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: incorrect MX handling<<> RFC 974 does not sp
1634+ 06/17 Keith Moore        it's been kind of quiet here lately...<<This is 
1635+ 06/18 Dave Crocker       abnf.txt<<--============_-1376960606==_=========
1636+ 06/19 Pete Resnick       Re: abnf.txt<<On 6/19/96 at 12:00 AM -0500, Dave
1637+ 06/19 Paul Overell       Re: abnf.txt<<In article <v0300741aaded2f7be0b8@
1638+ 06/20 John Gardiner Mye  Re: abnf.txt<<The basic rule form: name = elemen
1639+ 06/20 Dave Crocker       Re: abnf.txt<<At 12:45 PM -0700 6/20/96, John Ga
1640+ 06/20 Chris Newman       Re: abnf.txt<<The main justification to use ::= 
1641+ 06/20 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: abnf.txt<<On 20 Jun 1996 14:10:56 -0700, Dav
1642+ 06/20 Dave Crocker       Re: abnf.txt<<At 3:15 PM -0700 6/20/96, Chris Ne
1643+ 06/21 Paul Overell       Re: abnf.txt<<In article <835308905.7183.0@nifty
1644+ 06/21 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: abnf.txt<<(warning: real point of the messag
1645+ 06/21 "Paul E. Hoffman"  Email pizza BOF in Montreal<<Greetings. One of t
1646+ 06/25 Robert Elz         Re: abnf.txt<<Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:15:05 -0
1647+ 06/25 Jim Conklin        Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<Most of the RFC's with 
1648+ 06/25 Dave Crocker       Re: abnf.txt<<At 2:51 AM -0700 6/25/96, Robert E
1649+ 06/26 "michael (m.) har  Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<In message "abnf.txt (:
1650+ 06/26 Dave Crocker       Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<At 4:45 AM -0700 6/26/9
1651+ 06/27 John Gardiner Mye  Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@
1652+ 06/28 Paul Overell       Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<In article <olofugu00WB
1653+ 06/27 Dave Crocker       Re: abnf.txt (::= vs =)<<At 10:02 AM -0700 6/27/
1654+ 06/28 John C Klensin     821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montreal<
1655+ 06/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1656+ 06/29 Pete Resnick       Obsolete syntax<<A discussion took place at the 
1657+ 06/30 John C Klensin     Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's Mess
1658+ 06/30 John C Klensin     Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<At 10:00 96.
1659+ 06/30 Ned Freed          Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<> > Having s
1660+ 06/30 Keith Moore        Re: Obsolete syntax<<> 1. Have the ABNF specify 
1661+ 06/30 Paul Hoffman       Re: Obsolete syntax<<At 11:31 AM -0700 6/30/96, 
1662+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Header issues<<You may have just seen the few me
1663+ 06/30 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1664+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<On 6/29/96 a
1665+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Obsolete syntax<<On 6/30/96 at 1:31 PM -0500
1666+ 06/30 Einar Stefferud    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1668+ 06/30 Keith Moore        Re: Obsolete syntax<<> Names of tokens just shou
1669+ 06/30 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Obsolete syntax<<> I support option 2 as wel
1670+ 06/30 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1671+ 06/30 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<> SHOULD NOT
1672+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1673+ 06/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: Obsolete syntax<<presnick@qualcomm.com (Pete
1674+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1675+ 07/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1676+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1677+ 07/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1678+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1679+ 07/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1680+ 07/01 Alain Zahm         Rep : Obsolete syntax<<> A discussion took place
1681+ 07/01 John C Klensin     Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1682+ 07/01 John C Klensin     Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1683+ 07/01 John C Klensin     Re: Obsolete syntax<<At 14:51 96.06.30 -0500, Pe
1684+ 07/01 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1685+ 07/01 Jim Conklin        Re: Obsolete syntax<<At 3:41 PM 6/29/96, Pete Re
1686+ 07/01 Jim Conklin        Re: Obsolete syntax<<At 1:31 PM 6/30/96, Keith M
1687+ 07/01 Jim Conklin        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1688+ 07/01 Jim Conklin        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields<<At 9:01 AM 7/1/96, Ke
1689+ 07/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1690+ 07/01 D. J. Bernstein    extensibility != ambiguity<<> IMO, this falls in
1691+ 07/01 Einar Stefferud    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1693+ 07/01 Pete Resnick       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1694+ 07/01 Pete Resnick       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1695+ 07/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Obsolete syntax<<presnick@qualcomm.com (Pete
1696+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1697+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    MAIL/RCPT spacing<<The RFC 821 syntax clearly pr
1698+ 07/01 Keith Moore        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1699+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1700+ 07/01 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1701+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1702+ 07/01 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1703+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1704+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1705+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1706+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1707+ 07/02 Michael D'Errico   Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1708+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1709+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1710+ 07/02 Michael D'Errico   Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1711+ 07/02 Eric Thomas        Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1712+ 07/02 Matti Aarnio       Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1713+ 07/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: extensibility != ambiguity<<djb@koobera.math
1714+ 07/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1715+ 07/02 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1716+ 07/02 Matti Aarnio       Re: extensibility != ambiguity<<Harald writes: >
1717+ 07/02 Robert Elz         Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1718+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1719+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1720+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: extensibility != ambiguity<<At 16:43 96.07.0
1721+ 07/02 Eric Thomas        Re: extensibility != ambiguity<<This too is gett
1722+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    reality vs. resnick<<> > You're talking about th
1723+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1724+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1725+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1726+ 07/02 Ofer Inbar         ESMTP in 220 - suggested text<<Note that many SM
1727+ 07/02 Dave Barr          Re: reality vs. resnick<<In message <19960702164
1728+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1729+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: libel<<> p.s. At the risk of starting a disc
1730+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: extensibility != ambiguity<<> Bogon alarm! I
1731+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1732+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: reality vs. resnick<<> It never sends large 
1733+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1734+ 07/02 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Working Group Scope<<In the inte
1735+ 07/02 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Netiquette for this list<<Member
1736+ 07/02 Chris Newman       From the Chair: WG Last Call<<Unless at least tw
1737+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<> Unless at le
1738+ 07/02 D. J. Bernstein    low timeouts<<By default, sendmail V8 puts a 30-
1739+ 07/02 Michael D'Errico   Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<> Unless at le
1740+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis outstanding issues list -- post Montr
1741+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<At 22:17 96.07
1742+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    eliminate QUIT?<<As Ed Taft pointed out in 1983,
1743+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<On 7/2/96 at 5
1744+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<> Actually, Er
1745+ 07/03 Eric Thomas        Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<On Tue, 2 Jul 
1746+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<On 7/2/96 at 7:34 PM -0500,
1747+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Would this not be the Pla
1748+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: eliminate QUIT?<<At 00:34 96.07.03 +0000, D.
1749+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> I don't understand the mo
1750+ 07/02 Pete Resnick       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<On 7/2/96 at 8:22 PM -0500,
1751+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> > Would this not be the P
1752+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Perhaps a negotiated ESMT
1753+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> However, QUIT has no valu
1754+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> However, whereas now such
1755+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> I believe we probably hav
1756+ 07/03 Eric Thomas        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<For the record, I think QUI
1757+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> > I believe we probably h
1758+ 07/03 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: low timeouts<<Port 113 is the authentication
1759+ 07/03 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: low timeouts<<Found the reference....RFC 112
1760+ 07/03 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: eliminate QUIT?<<In theory, QUIT gives the s
1761+ 07/03 Tim Goodwin        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> In theory, QUIT gives the
1762+ 07/03 Pete Resnick       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<On 7/3/96 at 12:41 AM -0500
1763+ 07/03 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: eliminate QUIT?<<D. J. Bernstein writes: > >
1764+ 07/03 Dave Barr          Re: eliminate QUIT?<<In message <v03007801ae002d
1765+ 07/03 Chris Newman       Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call<<djb@koobera.ma
1766+ 07/03 Chris Newman       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<I think I'm hearing a rough
1767+ 07/03 Philip Hazel       5xx return codes<<I've had some discussion with 
1768+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> In theory, QUIT gives the
1769+ 07/03 Ofer Inbar         Re: eliminate QUIT?<<Eliminating QUIT seems to m
1770+ 07/03 Olle Jarnefors     Re: Obsolete syntax<<Keith Moore wrote: > On the
1771+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> If nearly all do, then I 
1772+ 07/03 Chris Newman       From the Chair: WG Scope<<cos@leftbank.com (Ofer
1773+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> I think I'm hearing a rou
1774+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: 5xx return codes<<Data point: qmail sends 55
1775+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: 5xx return codes<<> I feel the need for a ne
1776+ 07/03 Pete Resnick       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<On 7/2/96 at 7:34 PM -0500,
1777+ 07/03 John Gardiner Mye  Factual correction<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D.
1778+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Explicit start and end of
1779+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Anyway, I don't understan
1780+ 07/03 John Gardiner Mye  Re: eliminate QUIT?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1781+ 07/04 Dave Crocker       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<At 4:54 AM -0700 7/3/96, Ti
1782+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> I think the only problem 
1783+ 07/03 Chris Newman       Re: eliminate QUIT?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1784+ 07/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Some emprical data: About
1785+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: eliminate QUIT?<<> Anyway, does this mean th
1786+ 07/03 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1787+ 07/03 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1788+ 07/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1789+ 07/04 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1790+ 07/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1791+ 07/04 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1792+ 07/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1793+ 07/04 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1794+ 07/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1795+ 07/04 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1796+ 07/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1797+ 07/05 Barry Finkel       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields<<I joined this discuss
1798+ 07/05 Barry Finkel       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields<<>An SMTP server shoul
1799+ 07/05 "Sukvinder Singh   RE: Multiple 'To:" fields<<>When the cc:Mail SMT
1800+ 07/05 Barry Finkel       Re: Multiple 'To:" fields<<>Some user agents won
1801+ 07/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: Multiple 'To:" fields<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Kei
1802+ 07/10 Alan Barrett       Re: 5xx return codes<<> Data point: qmail sends 
1803+ 07/10 Philip Hazel       Re: 5xx return codes<<On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Alan 
1804+ 07/10 Chris Newman       From The Chair: Issue Concensus<<Last call on th
1805+ 07/10 Chris Newman       From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<In Mon
1806+ 07/10 Chris Newman       From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<One mo
1807+ 07/10 John C Klensin     Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<On
1808+ 07/10 Dave Crocker       Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<Sm
1809+ 07/10 Dave Crocker       Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<At
1810+ 07/11 Jim Conklin        Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<I 
1811+ 07/11 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<On
1812+ 07/11 John C Klensin     Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<On
1813+ 07/11 "John W. Noerenbe  Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<At
1814+ 07/11 John Gardiner Mye  common nonterminals<<I really think splitting ou
1815+ 07/11 John Gardiner Mye  5xx replies to RCPT<<Barry Finkel <b19141@achill
1816+ 07/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1817+ 07/12 Robert Elz         Re: 5xx replies to RCPT<<Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 
1818+ 07/11 Dave Crocker       Re: common nonterminals<<At 12:59 PM -0700 7/11/
1819+ 07/11 Chris Newman       Re: common nonterminals<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@
1820+ 07/11 Chris Newman       DRUMS WG Montreal minutes<<DRUMS Notes Reported 
1821+ 07/11 Keith Moore        Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<> 
1822+ 07/12 Olle Jarnefors     Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<Da
1823+ 07/12 Keith Moore        Re: Multiple 'To:" fields (was: Re: Microsoft's 
1824+ 07/13 Kai Henningsen     Re: From The Chair: WG Last Call ABNF Issues<<oj
1825+ 07/15 Jacob Palme        Change definition of "References" header in e-ma
1826+ 07/15 "Jacob Palme DSV-  Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<> RFC 822 sa
1827+ 07/15 Jacob Palme        Recommending use of 8-bit transport<<If you are 
1828+ 07/16 Dave Crocker       Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts<<At 1:01 AM -
1829+ 07/19 Michael_Harer@mot  handling sendmail nonconformance<<I recently cam
1830+ 07/20 D. J. Bernstein    Re: handling sendmail nonconformance<<> I recent
1831+ 07/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: handling sendmail nonconformance<<Michael_Ha
1832+ 07/21 D. J. Bernstein    zones in comments, again<<I see from the Montrea
1833+ 07/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: zones in comments, again<<djb@koobera.math.u
1834+ 07/21 D. J. Bernstein    why compliance is so tricky
1836+ 07/22 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: Recommending use of 8-bit transport<<> If yo
1837+ 07/22 chag@moneyworld.c  Chancellor Group (symbol = CHAG)<<http://chancel
1838+ 07/23 Keith Moore        Re: Recommending use of 8-bit transport<<> An EM
1839+ 07/23 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: Recommending use of 8-bit transport<<moore@c
1840+ 07/23 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Recommending use of 8-bit transport<<> but m
1841+ 07/24 Kai Henningsen     Strange header corruption<<I've seen this logged
1842+ 07/24 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Strange header corruption<<> I've seen this 
1843+ 07/29 D. J. Bernstein    ``with foo'' legal?<<Is Received: with internal;
1844+ 07/29 D. J. Bernstein    multiple-RCPT error<<One flaw with the existing 
1845+ 07/29 Pete Resnick       Re: multiple-RCPT error<<On 7/29/96 at 8:15 AM -
1846+ 07/30 Matti Aarnio       Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<> Is > > Received: with
1847+ 07/29 Keith Moore        Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<> Is > > Received: with
1848+ 07/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.ed
1849+ 07/29 D. J. Bernstein    Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<> The list of known "vi
1850+ 07/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<djb@koobera.math.uic.ed
1851+ 07/30 Matti Aarnio       Re: ``with foo'' legal?<<> djb@koobera.math.uic.
1852+ 07/30 D. J. Bernstein    Re: smtpupd-02<<> The headers form a collection 
1853+ 07/31 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-02<<Date: 30 Jul 1996 16:39:10 -0000
1854+ 07/31 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: smtpupd-02<<Didn't we have the discussion a 
1855+ 07/31 "Roger Fajman"     Re: smtpupd-02<<> Didn't we have the discussion 
1856+ 08/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: smtpupd-02<<RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.UNISYS.COM wrot
1857+ 08/01 Jacob Palme        Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elements i
1858+ 08/01 Robert Elz         Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1859+ 08/01 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1860+ 08/01 Paul Hoffman       Re: smtpupd-02<<>> SMTP mail is inherently insec
1861+ 08/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1862+ 08/01 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1863+ 08/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1864+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1865+ 08/02 Robert Elz         Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1866+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1867+ 08/02 Robert Elz         Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1868+ 08/02 John C Klensin     Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1869+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    MX loop example<<Here's an example illustrating 
1870+ 08/02 Philip Hazel       Re: MX loop example<<On 2 Aug 1996, D. J. Bernst
1871+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1872+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> Exim treats as LOCAL any 
1873+ 08/02 John C Klensin     Re: MX loop example<<On Fri, 02 Aug 1996 13:37:3
1874+ 08/02 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> -- A host is required to 
1875+ 08/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: MX loop example<<klensin@mail1.reston.mci.ne
1876+ 08/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1877+ 08/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> This would, in strict for
1878+ 08/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: MX loop example<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D
1879+ 08/04 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-02<<Date: 01 Aug 1996 09:24:00 +0200
1880+ 08/04 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 2 Aug 1996 18:42:44 -
1881+ 08/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> What you do with mail add
1882+ 08/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> Now what was the SMTP rep
1883+ 08/04 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 3 Aug 1996 18:11:07 -
1884+ 08/03 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> > If you accept a message
1885+ 08/03 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: MX loop example<<On 04 Aug 1996 05:24:04 +10
1886+ 08/03 "Ian S. King"      Re: MX loop example<<On 3 Aug 1996, D. J. Bernst
1887+ 08/04 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 3 Aug 1996 20:15:21 -
1888+ 08/04 Jacob Palme        header-munging<<The issue of whether header-mung
1889+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> the specs > control imple
1890+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 16:36:29 -
1891+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: header-munging<<Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 17:34:
1892+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> No, you don't understand,
1893+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    denial of service<<Here's a summary of Elz's lat
1894+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 17:46:06 -
1895+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    dns errors<<> No, in the cases I mention, the un
1896+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: header-munging<<> The issue of whether heade
1897+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: denial of service<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 18:05:56
1898+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> But now you admit that yo
1899+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 19:07:35 -
1900+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: denial of service<<> Even engaging in the HE
1901+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: denial of service<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 19:32:31
1902+ 08/04 Pete Resnick       POINT OF ORDER (Was: MX loop example)<<OK, this 
1903+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> Rejecting mail incurs cos
1904+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: POINT OF ORDER (Was: MX loop example)<<> DLB
1905+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: MX loop example<<Date: 4 Aug 1996 20:23:53 -
1906+ 08/04 Pete Resnick       Re: POINT OF ORDER (Was: MX loop example)<<On 8/
1907+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: denial of service<<> > If I want to reduce t
1908+ 08/04 Pete Resnick       PLEASE STOP (Was: denial of service)<<Please tak
1909+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: MX loop example<<> Would you relay mail via 
1910+ 08/04 Pete Resnick       STOP NOW (Was: MX loop example)<<Which part of t
1911+ 08/04 D. J. Bernstein    Re: STOP NOW (Was: MX loop example)<<> Which par
1912+ 08/04 Pete Resnick       Re: STOP NOW (Was: MX loop example)<<On 8/4/96 a
1913+ 08/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: STOP NOW (Was: MX loop example)<<> > It also
1914+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: STOP NOW (Was: MX loop example)<<Date: 5 Aug
1915+ 08/05 Pete Resnick       Politics and censorship of participants<<On 8/4/
1916+ 08/05 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Politics and censorship of participants<<> N
1917+ 08/05 Philip Hazel       Re: header-munging<<On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Jacob Pa
1918+ 08/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  IANA registrations (Re: ``with foo'' legal?)<<I 
1919+ 08/05 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: header-munging<<On 5 Aug 1996 10:03:48 +0100
1920+ 08/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: STOP NOW<<I just want to note one thing, sin
1921+ 08/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: header-munging<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D.
1922+ 08/06 Philip Hazel       Re: header-munging<<On 6 Aug 1996, Kai Henningse
1923+ 08/06 Mark Crispin       Re: header-munging<<I apologize in advance for t
1924+ 08/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: header-munging<<> And to make it worse, SMTP
1925+ 08/06 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-02<<> Didn't we have the discussion 
1926+ 08/06 D. J. Bernstein    Re: smtpupd-02<<> In my opinion, the set of doma
1928+ 08/06 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: smtpupd-02<<On 06 Aug 1996 17:03:30 -0400, K
1929+ 08/07 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-02<<Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:30:04 -
1930+ 08/06 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: smtpupd-02<<On 07 Aug 1996 08:47:48 +1000, R
1931+ 08/07 D. J. Bernstein    Re: smtpupd-02<<> (still works if we take dots o
1932+ 08/07 Philip Hazel       Re: header-munging<<On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Mark Cri
1933+ 08/07 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Allowing and disallwoing LWSP between elemen
1934+ 08/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: header-munging<<ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Philip H
1935+ 08/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: smtpupd-02<<RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.UNISYS.COM (Ran
1936+ 08/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: IANA registrations (Re: ``with foo'' legal?)
1937+ 08/07 Jacob Palme        The same protocol for MTA-MTA and UA-MTA communi
1938+ 08/07 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: The same protocol for MTA-MTA and UA-MTA com
1939+ 08/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: smtpupd-02<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) w
1940+ 08/08 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-02<<Date: 07 Aug 1996 19:09:00 +0200
1941+ 08/08 Robert Elz         Re: The same protocol for MTA-MTA and UA-MTA com
1942+ 08/08 Harald.T.Alvestra  MTA authentication (Re: header-munging)<<One sug
1943+ 08/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: The same protocol for MTA-MTA and UA-MTA com
1944+ 08/11 Pete Resnick       Characters and octets and 822bis<<Greetings all,
1945+ 08/11 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<Why should
1946+ 08/11 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<On 8/11/96
1947+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<822 has th
1948+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    mail addresses<<Here's a first cut at a descript
1949+ 08/12 Tim Goodwin        Unusual header field names<<According to RFC 822
1950+ 08/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<On 8/12/96
1951+ 08/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<At 1:33 AM
1952+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<> (b) Ther
1953+ 08/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<We've got 
1954+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<> So, that
1955+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<: Or the m
1956+ 08/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<I'll repea
1957+ 08/12 Ofer Inbar         Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<Pete Resni
1958+ 08/12 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<> Now that
1959+ 08/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<On 8/12/96
1960+ 08/12 Ofer Inbar         Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<> >Did you
1961+ 08/12 "Randall C. Gelle  Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<On 12 Aug 
1962+ 08/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<On 8/12/96
1963+ 08/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<At 11:56 A
1964+ 08/13 D. J. Bernstein    Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<> I wonder
1965+ 08/14 D. J. Bernstein    blank line redivivus<<Just got this today. Recei
1966+ 08/15 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<Pete, the 
1967+ 08/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Characters and octets and 822bis<<[ back fro
1968+ 09/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Factual correction<<John G. Myers wrote: > L
1969+ 09/23 Dave Crocker       Preventing replying<<Folks, The voice messaging 
1970+ 09/23 Jay@aol.com        Re: Preventing replying<<In a message dated 96-0
1971+ 09/24 Philip Hazel       Re: Preventing replying<<On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Da
1972+ 09/24 John C Klensin     Re: Preventing replying<<On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 17:
1973+ 09/24 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<At 12:33 AM -0700 9/24/
1974+ 09/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Preventing replying<<Dave Crocker writes: > 
1975+ 09/24 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Factual correction<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@k
1976+ 09/25 Philip Hazel       Re: Preventing replying<<On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Da
1977+ 09/25 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: Preventing replying<<> Why not use the same 
1978+ 09/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Preventing replying<<Basically, this is neve
1979+ 09/25 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<At 4:52 AM -0700 9/25/9
1980+ 09/25 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<At 6:01 AM -0700 9/25/9
1981+ 09/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Preventing replying<<On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:
1982+ 09/25 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<At 7:25 AM -0700 9/25/9
1983+ 09/25 Philip Hazel       Re: Preventing replying<<On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Da
1984+ 09/25 Mark Crispin       Re: Preventing replying<<On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:
1985+ 09/25 Eric Thomas        Re: Preventing replying<<On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:
1986+ 09/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Preventing replying<<> From: Voice message w
1987+ 09/25 Jay@aol.com        Re: Preventing replying<<In a message dated 96-0
1988+ 09/25 Jay@aol.com        Re: Preventing replying<<In a message dated 96-0
1989+ 09/25 Jay@aol.com        Re: Preventing replying<<In a message dated 96-0
1990+ 09/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Preventing replying<<dcrocker@brandenburg.co
1991+ 09/25 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Preventing replying<<> > It HAS to work. The
1992+ 09/25 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<At 11:08 AM -0700 9/25/
1993+ 09/25 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: Preventing replying<<On 25 Sep 1996 13:47:10
1994+ 09/26 Matti Aarnio       Re: Preventing replying<<> I should never send e
1995+ 09/26 9405884220@sms.in  GSM-teksti<<unreplyable? see my other letter. me
1996+ 09/26 Eric Thomas        Re: Preventing replying<<I'm sorry, but I still 
1997+ 09/26 Dave Crocker       Re: Preventing replying<<Folks, From the discuss
1998+ 09/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Preventing replying<<> Voicemail on the othe
1999+ 09/26 Eric Thomas        Maximum userid/hostname lengths<<What are the cu
2000+ 09/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Preventing replying<<> So, for cases in whic
2001+ 09/26 MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB  Re: Preventing replying<<On 26 Sep 1996 17:28:48
2002+ 09/26 John C Klensin     Re: Preventing replying<<Bill, I'm having a bad 
2003+ 09/26 RANDY@MPA15AB.MV.  Re: Preventing replying<<On 26 Sep 1996 10:48:57
2004+ 09/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: Preventing replying<<djb@koobera.math.uic.ed
2005+ 09/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: Preventing replying<<dcrocker@brandenburg.co
2006+ 09/30 "Perry E. Metzger  what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<I'd dec
2007+ 09/30 Philip Hazel       Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<On 
2008+ 09/30 spencer@fogcity.c  Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<>We
2009+ 09/30 Jay@aol.com        Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<In 
2010+ 09/30 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<Jay
2011+ 09/30 Jay@aol.com        Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<In 
2012+ 09/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<>We
2013+ 09/30 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<"Ja
2014+ 09/30 "Jack De Winter"   regarding NULLs within RFC822 messages...<<I was
2015+ 09/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: what to do if you are rejecting mail...<<>cy
2016+ 09/30 Mark Crispin       re: regarding NULLs within RFC822 messages...<<R
2017+ 10/01 Philip Hazel       Re: several messages<<On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 spence
2018+ 10/02 "Jack De Winter"   question regarding the <local-part> of RFC821 sy
2019+ 10/02 "Jack De Winter"   regarding currently discussed topics...<<a coupl
2020+ 10/03 Chris Newman       IPv6 literals<<I have been asked to try to get c
2021+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  cname lookup effort<<RFC 1123 (following RFC 821
2022+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: IPv6 literals<<IPv6 addresses have to change
2023+ 10/04 Peter Koch         Re: cname lookup effort<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@
2024+ 10/04 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<Most importantly, this 
2025+ 10/04 Matti Aarnio       Re: cname lookup effort<<Hmm.. Eric is reading "
2026+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> A client should not i
2027+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> Most importantly, thi
2028+ 10/04 Matti Aarnio       Re: cname lookup effort<<> > A client should not
2029+ 10/04 Peter Koch         Re: cname lookup effort<<> For a MAIL command, t
2030+ 10/04 Peter Koch         Re: cname lookup effort<<> box saying "Tut tut, 
2031+ 10/04 Chris Newman       Re: cname lookup effort
2033+ 10/04 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> RFC 1123 (following R
2034+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> You have strange way 
2035+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> The main requirement 
2036+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> Past experience has s
2037+ 10/05 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On 4 Oct 1996 16:24:12 
2038+ 10/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> It should do a DNS qu
2039+ 10/04 Chris Newman       Re: cname lookup effort<<On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, D. 
2040+ 10/05 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 15:
2041+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> > However, _sending_ 
2042+ 10/05 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On 5 Oct 1996 02:13:34 
2043+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> No, but I suspect we 
2044+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> Here is a (very commo
2045+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> That's both idiotic (
2046+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<People, Dan is clearly 
2047+ 10/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith
2048+ 10/05 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On 5 Oct 1996 04:05:05 
2049+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 1
2050+ 10/05 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<Robert, I have describe
2051+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 1
2052+ 10/04 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: IPv6 literals<<The URL people seem reasonabl
2053+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: IPv6 literals<<> The URL people seem reasona
2054+ 10/05 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: IPv6 literals<<Keith Moore writes: > > The U
2055+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: IPv6 literals<<> There is always the ipv6.in
2056+ 10/05 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: IPv6 literals<<Keith Moore writes: > > There
2057+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: IPv6 literals<<> However, I will note that t
2058+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> > > How much effort d
2059+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> Robert, I have descri
2060+ 10/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: cname lookup effort<<> The "cname plus other
2061+ 10/06 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Sat, 05 Oct 1996 20:
2062+ 10/05 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> >A solution that migh
2063+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: cname lookup effort<<> A solution that might
2064+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: 6 Oct 1996 01:15:
2065+ 10/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (E
2066+ 10/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robe
2067+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: 06 Oct 1996 01:43
2068+ 10/06 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Sat, 05 Oct 1996 22:
2069+ 10/06 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Sat, 05 Oct 1996 22:
2070+ 10/06 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On 06 Oct 1996 01:19:00
2071+ 10/06 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> >Not necessarily. If 
2072+ 10/06 "Jack De Winter"   Re: cname lookup effort<<Same here, I agree whol
2073+ 10/06 "Jack De Winter"   Re: cname lookup effort<<Okay Keith, maybe we ne
2074+ 10/06 "Roger Fajman"     Re: cname lookup effort<<> >Certainly there's no
2075+ 10/06 "Roger Fajman"     Re: cname lookup effort<<> >If you have an alias
2076+ 10/07 Ofer Inbar         Re: cname lookup effort<<kai@khms.westfalen.de (
2077+ 10/07 Keith Moore        Re: cname lookup effort<<> Okay Keith, maybe we 
2078+ 10/07 Philip Hazel       Re: cname lookup effort<<On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Ofe
2079+ 10/07 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 1
2080+ 10/07 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 10:
2081+ 10/07 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 15:
2082+ 10/08 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 1
2083+ 10/08 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 1
2084+ 10/08 Robert Elz         Re: cname lookup effort<<Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 0
2085+ 10/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith
2086+ 10/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (E
2087+ 10/08 Eric Thomas        Re: cname lookup effort<<On Tue, 08 Oct 1996 01:
2088+ 10/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (E
2089+ 10/07 "Roger Fajman"     Re: cname lookup effort<<> Agreed, multiple IP's
2090+ 10/08 Philip Hazel       Re: cname lookup effort<<On 7 Oct 1996, Kai Henn
2091+ 10/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: cname lookup effort<<"Roger Fajman" writes: 
2092+ 10/08 John Gardiner Mye  Re: IPv6 literals<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu
2093+ 10/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IPv6 literals<<> The route-stripping (per 11
2094+ 10/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: cname lookup effort<<cos@leftbank.com (Ofer 
2095+ 10/10 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: IPv6 literals<<The claim has been made that 
2096+ 10/10 Harald.T.Alvestra  IPv6 domain literals - test results<<One data po
2097+ 10/10 Philip Hazel       Re: IPv6 domain literals - test results<<On Thu,
2098+ 10/10 John C Klensin     Re: IPv6 literals<<On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:07:26 
2099+ 10/10 John Gardiner Mye  Re: IPv6 literals<<The CC line was recieved here
2100+ 10/10 Chris Newman       Re: IPv6 literals<<More tests on IMAP servers. T
2101+ 10/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: IPv6 literals<<Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.n
2102+ 10/11 Robert Elz         Re: IPv6 literals<<Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:07:
2103+ 10/11 Robert Elz         IPv6 literals - my result<<------- Forwarded Mes
2104+ 10/11 Eric Thomas        CNAME/1123 breakage<<Here is a counter-example t
2105+ 10/11 Keith Moore        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> Well, all of the abov
2106+ 10/12 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 
2107+ 10/13 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:
2108+ 10/13 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 18:
2109+ 10/13 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 
2110+ 10/13 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 17:
2111+ 10/14 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 
2112+ 10/13 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 01:
2113+ 10/14 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 
2114+ 10/13 Michael D'Errico   Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> >Please don't go brea
2115+ 10/14 Keith Moore        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> >let's see...the clie
2116+ 10/14 Alan Barrett       Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> Seems like there's th
2117+ 10/14 "Jack De Winter"   Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<At 10:19 AM 10/14/96 +0
2118+ 10/14 Mark Crispin       Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:
2119+ 10/15 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<I don't understand. Wha
2120+ 10/14 Mark Crispin       Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:
2121+ 10/14 "Jack De Winter"   Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<>don't require it. Basi
2122+ 10/15 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:
2123+ 10/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> The bottom line here 
2124+ 10/14 Mark Crispin       Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 02:
2125+ 10/15 Eric Thomas        Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:
2126+ 10/15 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 
2127+ 10/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<MRC@Panda.COM (Mark Cri
2128+ 10/15 John Gardiner Mye  Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda
2129+ 10/16 Robert Elz         Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 
2130+ 10/15 mags@natureplus.c  Magazine Special...Buys Computers for schools!<<
2131+ 10/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> I am not, however, ye
2132+ 10/15 "Jack De Winter"   Server-Client Authentication...<<I was just talk
2133+ 10/15 Jos den Bekker     8bits in unstructured header fields<<Hello, The 
2134+ 10/15 "Roger Fajman"     Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<> "D. J. Bernstein" <dj
2135+ 10/16 Kai Henningsen     Re: CNAME/1123 breakage<<jgm@CMU.EDU (John Gardi
2136+ 10/16 John Gardiner Mye  Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<8bits i
2137+ 10/16 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<Hello J
2138+ 10/16 "Jack De Winter "  Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<Doesn't
2139+ 10/16 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Wed 
2140+ 10/16 "Jack De Winter "  trying to find more about AUTH<<I did some more 
2141+ 10/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: trying to find more about AUTH<<"Jack De Win
2142+ 10/16 Keith Moore        Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<[ this 
2143+ 10/17 John C Klensin     Re: trying to find more about AUTH<<On Wed, 16 O
2144+ 10/17 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Wed 
2145+ 10/17 Keith Moore        Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<> >[ th
2146+ 10/17 Kai Henningsen     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<moore@c
2147+ 10/17 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Thu 
2148+ 10/17 "Jack De Winter "  Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<>I stil
2149+ 10/17 Pete Resnick       Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<On 10/1
2150+ 10/17 "Jack De Winter "  regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<I was lookin
2151+ 10/17 Matti Aarnio       Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<> The on
2152+ 10/17 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Thu 
2153+ 10/17 Pete Resnick       Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<On 10/1
2154+ 10/17 Ned Freed          Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<> I was 
2155+ 10/17 Keith Moore        Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<> I was 
2156+ 10/18 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<moore@cs
2157+ 10/18 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Thu 
2158+ 10/18 Keith Moore        Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<> Any ch
2159+ 10/18 Kai Henningsen     Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<Ned.Free
2160+ 10/19 John Gardiner Mye  Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<josdb@x
2161+ 10/20 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Sat 
2162+ 10/20 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<Allow m
2163+ 10/20 Pete Resnick       Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<On 10/1
2164+ 10/19 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: regarding some ESMTP extensions...<<Actually
2165+ 10/20 Harald.T.Alvestra  About that 8-bit discussion.....<<Now that the a
2166+ 10/21 John C Klensin     Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<On Sun, 20
2167+ 10/21 Jos den Bekker     Re: 8bits in unstructured header fields<<on Sun 
2168+ 10/22 "Larry Osterman (  RE: IPv6 literals<<Exchange 4.5 did exactly the 
2169+ 10/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<klensin@ma
2170+ 10/22 Mark Crispin       Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<The proble
2171+ 10/22 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>Well, it'
2172+ 10/23 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<--NextP
2173+ 10/23 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<Some of these are 
2174+ 10/23 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 9:47 AM -07
2175+ 10/23 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On 10/23/96 at
2176+ 10/23 MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<More comments 
2177+ 10/23 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On 10/23/96 at
2178+ 10/23 MCQUILLAN@MPA15AB  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On 23 Oct 1996
2179+ 10/23 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 12:48 PM -0
2180+ 10/23 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 2:07 PM -07
2181+ 10/24 Chris Newman       From the chair: 8-bit issues<<The whole 8-bit di
2182+ 10/24 Chris Newman       WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<Do we have concensu
2183+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On Wed, 23 Oct
2184+ 10/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<> 3) Use of thi
2185+ 10/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: From the chair: 8-bit issues<<At 10:56 AM 10
2186+ 10/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<"D. J. Bernstei
2187+ 10/24 Pete Resnick       Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<On 10/24/96 at 
2188+ 10/24 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 11:51 AM -0
2189+ 10/24 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<Chris Newman wr
2190+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: From the chair: 8-bit issues<<On Thu, 24 Oct
2191+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On Thu, 24 Oct
2192+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<On Thu, 24 Oct 
2193+ 10/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<> [BTW: The fac
2194+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<Here is a corre
2195+ 10/25 Alan Barrett       Re: WG Last Call: IPv6 literals<<Chris Newman <C
2196+ 10/26 Dave Crocker       <<subscribe -------------------- Dave Crocker +1
2197+ 10/27 John Gardiner Mye  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<Dave Crocker <
2198+ 10/27 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 10:35 AM -0
2199+ 10/27 John C Klensin     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<I think I'm ab
2200+ 10/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On Sun, 27 Oct
2201+ 10/27 John Gardiner Mye  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<RFC 822 does n
2202+ 10/27 John Gardiner Mye  Alternatives to ABNF<<John Klensin brings up goo
2203+ 10/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On 10/27/96 at
2204+ 10/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<1. Parentheses
2205+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> At 10:35 AM 
2206+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> (ii) If we n
2207+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> I think here
2208+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> 6. A well-de
2209+ 10/28 Pete Resnick       What counts as "obsolete syntax"?<<OK, I'm hopef
2210+ 10/28 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On 10/27/96 at
2211+ 10/28 Alan Barrett       What does "higher priority" mean<<> I also prefe
2212+ 10/28 Robert Elz         Re: What does "higher priority" mean<<Date: Mon,
2213+ 10/28 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 1:11 AM -08
2214+ 10/28 Chris Newman       Re: Alternatives to ABNF<<On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, J
2215+ 10/28 Chris Newman       Priority of "/" vs. concatenation<<I have seen t
2216+ 10/28 Dave Crocker       Re: Priority of "/" vs. concatenation<<At 10:11 
2217+ 10/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> comment = "(
2218+ 10/28 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<John, I don't 
2219+ 10/28 Chris Newman       Re: Priority of "/" vs. concatenation<<On Mon, 2
2220+ 10/28 Chris Newman       Goals of ABNF discussions<<John Klensin brings u
2221+ 10/28 "Roger Fajman"     Re: What does 'higher priority' mean<<> > I also
2222+ 10/28 Chris Newman       X-Sender problem<<This message is in MIME format
2223+ 10/28 Mark Crispin       re: X-Sender problem<<Chris - As you can imagine
2224+ 10/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<I think #1 is jus
2225+ 10/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  re: X-Sender problem<<I don't get it. Why is any
2226+ 10/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<jgm@CMU.EDU (J
2227+ 10/28 Dave Crocker       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<At 3:56 PM -0800 
2228+ 10/28 Chris Newman       re: X-Sender problem<<On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Mark 
2229+ 10/28 Chris Newman       re: X-Sender problem<<On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, D. J.
2230+ 10/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<On 10/28/96 at 6:
2231+ 10/28 Dave Crocker       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<At 5:11 PM -0800 
2232+ 10/28 "Jack De Winter"   re: X-Sender problem<<Okay, maybe back up a bit.
2233+ 10/28 Mark Crispin       re: X-Sender problem<<On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:20:
2234+ 10/29 "Jack De Winter"   concerning MIME types and the such...<<I know th
2235+ 10/29 Jerome Abela       Case independantness (Re: Goals of ABNF discussi
2236+ 10/29 Robert Elz         Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<Date: Mon, 28 Oct
2237+ 10/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<dcrocker@brand
2238+ 10/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<djb@koobera.ma
2239+ 10/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<dcrocker@brandenb
2240+ 10/29 Dave Crocker       Re: Case independantness (Re: Goals of ABNF disc
2241+ 10/29 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<At 12:02 AM -0
2242+ 10/29 Dave Crocker       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<At 12:10 AM -0800
2243+ 10/29 Chris Newman       re: X-Sender problem<<Mark gives some excellent 
2244+ 10/29 Paul Overell       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<Sec
2245+ 10/29 Chris Newman       Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<On Tue, 29 Oct 19
2246+ 10/29 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<On Mon, 28 Oct
2247+ 10/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Goals of ABNF discussions<<> Which, using Be
2248+ 10/29 Chris Newman       Re: concerning MIME types and the such...<<On Tu
2249+ 10/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt<<> True. Except
2250+ 10/29 "Jack De Winter"   why do we want to use an improved BNF for syntax
2251+ 10/29 Dave Crocker       Re: why do we want to use an improved BNF for sy
2252+ 10/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  pmdf 5.1 multithreading<<Apparently the latest r
2253+ 10/29 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: concerning MIME types and the such...<<See h
2254+ 10/30 Jim Conklin        Re: What does "higher priority" mean<<I think Al
2255+ 10/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: What does "higher priority" mean<<> I think 
2256+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   regarding the handling of weird address formats.
2258+ 10/31 Robert Elz         Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2259+ 10/30 Michael D'Errico   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2260+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2262+ 11/01 Glenn Anderson     Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2263+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2264+ 10/30 Mark Crispin       Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2265+ 10/30 Chris Newman       Re: What does "higher priority" mean<<On Wed, 30
2266+ 10/30 Chris Newman       Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2267+ 10/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2268+ 10/30 "Roger Fajman"     Re: What does 'higher priority' mean<<> I draw t
2269+ 10/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: What does 'higher priority' mean<<> But this
2270+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2271+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2272+ 10/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2273+ 10/31 Cyberbaron         RE: What does 'higher priority' mean<<On 31 Oct 
2274+ 10/31 Kai Henningsen     Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2275+ 10/31 Peter Sylvester    Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2276+ 10/31 Chris Newman       Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2277+ 10/31 Kai Henningsen     Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2278+ 10/31 "John W. Noerenbe  Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2279+ 10/31 "Jack De Winter"   about authentication trails in messages for RFC8
2280+ 11/01 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<klensin@ma
2281+ 11/01 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>Yes. And 
2282+ 11/01 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: What does 'higher priority' mean<<"Roger Faj
2283+ 11/01 Chris Newman       Re: about authentication trails in messages for 
2284+ 11/01 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<In message
2285+ 11/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> 1) If Ju
2286+ 11/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: regarding the handling of weird address form
2287+ 11/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: about authentication trails in messages for 
2288+ 11/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<jack@wildb
2289+ 11/02 Mark Crispin       Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<I disagree
2290+ 11/02 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>> what fo
2291+ 11/02 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>I think t
2292+ 11/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> 8BITMIME
2293+ 11/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> With a J
2294+ 11/02 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<Let's just
2295+ 11/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> Its obvi
2296+ 11/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<MRC@Panda.
2297+ 11/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<djb@koober
2298+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>Indeed. >
2300+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>You could
2301+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>Of course
2302+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   about missing header lines again...<<Okay, just 
2303+ 11/03 Mark Crispin       Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<On 03 Nov 
2304+ 11/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> Actually
2305+ 11/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> You say 
2306+ 11/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> I admit,
2307+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<At 12:27 A
2308+ 11/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<>Here's ju
2309+ 11/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> So lets 
2310+ 11/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: About that 8-bit discussion.....<<> > Hypocr
2311+ 11/04 Keith Moore        the 8-bit discussion is a rathole<<I'm sick and 
2312+ 11/03 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: about authentication trails in messages for 
2313+ 11/05 Chris Newman       From the chair: 8-bit closed<<The 8-bit discussi
2314+ 11/05 "Jack De Winter"   Re: about authentication trails in messages for 
2315+ 11/12 "Jack De Winter"   regarding the quoting of characters in addresses
2316+ 11/12 "Nathaniel D. Daw  DRUMS draft grammar<<I'm not involved with this 
2317+ 11/12 Chris Newman       Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2318+ 11/13 Keith Moore        reminder of Internet-Draft cutoff date<<This is 
2319+ 11/13 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: DRUMS draft grammar<<Rejecting FQDNs that en
2320+ 11/13 Chris Newman       Header registry<<There has been some discussion 
2321+ 11/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2322+ 11/14 Barry Finkel       Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2323+ 11/15 Tim Goodwin        Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2324+ 11/16 Jacob Palme        Enforcing proper MIME encoding of 8-bit<<This pr
2325+ 11/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Enforcing proper MIME encoding of 8-bit<<> T
2326+ 11/16 Chris Newman       Re: Enforcing proper MIME encoding of 8-bit
2328+ 11/16 Chris Newman       Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2329+ 11/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: regarding the quoting of characters in addre
2330+ 11/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  more parsing failures<<According to a recent rep
2331+ 11/18 Paul Hoffman       Re: more parsing failures<<>Supposedly elm and t
2332+ 11/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  2LD NS SMTP survey<<The InterNIC zone files cont
2333+ 11/21 Ofer Inbar         Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@k
2334+ 11/21 Ofer Inbar         Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<I wrote: > "D. J. Bernst
2335+ 11/21 Dave Crocker       Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<At 12:38 PM -0800 11/21/
2336+ 11/21 Chris Newman       Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<Thanks, Dan. This is use
2337+ 11/21 Chris Newman       Proposed agenda<<Here's a proposed agenda for th
2338+ 11/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<Maybe I would be more ap
2339+ 11/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: 2LD NS SMTP survey<<> the time frame involve
2340+ 11/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  second SMTP survey<<The InterNIC zone files cont
2341+ 11/26 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<--============_
2342+ 11/25 gparsons@nt.com    Pre-Last Call: VPIM v2 (Voice Profile for Intern
2343+ 11/26 John C Klensin     821bis draft<<--=====================_849071178=
2344+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<RFC 822 has
2345+ 11/26 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/26/96
2346+ 11/27 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<>>There sho
2347+ 11/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/26/96
2348+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> There was
2349+ 11/27 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<--Ne
2350+ 11/27 Tim Goodwin        Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Actually,
2351+ 11/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/27/96
2352+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 27 Nov 1
2353+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2354+ 11/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<djb@koobera
2355+ 11/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<presnick@qu
2356+ 11/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<presnick@qu
2357+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<The issue w
2358+ 11/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/27/96
2359+ 11/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/27/96
2360+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2361+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2362+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> But there
2363+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Actually,
2364+ 11/27 Ofer Inbar         Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<>>If I read
2365+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Note espe
2366+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> 1) With f
2367+ 11/27 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 11/27/96
2368+ 11/27 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2369+ 11/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> The quest
2370+ 11/27 Chris Newman       From the Chair: personal attacks (again)<<Dan, A
2371+ 11/27 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Document Editors<<The document e
2372+ 11/27 Chris Newman       RFC 822 & message bodies<<We have two choices wi
2373+ 11/27 Chris Newman       "." in phrase<<According to my notes, the WG rea
2374+ 11/27 Chris Newman       unlabelled local time (was Re: draft-ietf-drums-
2375+ 11/27 bill@lynxhub.ho.a  RE: "." in phrase<<Newman> Cons: Newman> 1) A te
2376+ 11/27 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Tue, 26 
2377+ 11/27 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 05:27 PM
2378+ 11/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<MRC@Panda.C
2379+ 11/28 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 28 Nov 1
2380+ 11/28 Ian Bell           Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<In article 
2381+ 11/28 Peter Sylvester    draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<There are some 
2382+ 11/28 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 01:35 AM
2383+ 11/28 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<>It's not t
2384+ 11/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<djb@koobera
2385+ 11/28 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 10:50 PM
2386+ 11/29 John C Klensin     Re: From the Chair: Document Editors<<At 16:16 9
2387+ 11/29 John C Klensin     Re: DRUMS draft grammar<<At 12:22 96.11.12 -0500
2388+ 11/29 John C Klensin     Appendix H, RFC821bis<<In looking through the cu
2389+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Do not wa
2390+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: "." in phrase<<> generate unquoted "." in ph
2391+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  RE: "." in phrase<<> I wonder if anyone has gone
2392+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<[ trace fie
2393+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> There *is
2394+ 11/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<djb@koobera
2395+ 11/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 07:35 AM
2396+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Please qu
2397+ 11/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Instead o
2398+ 11/30 "Roger Fajman"     Re: '.' in phrase<<> Right now, I'm leaning in f
2399+ 11/30 Mark Crispin       Re: '.' in phrase<<I'm in favor of allowing gene
2400+ 12/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  new survey<<I posted the results of another surv
2401+ 12/01 Christian Kuhtz    Re: new survey<<A little bit more professionalis
2402+ 12/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: new survey<<> A little bit more professional
2403+ 12/01 Christian Kuhtz    Re: new survey<<Dear Dan: Maybe you should attem
2404+ 12/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: new survey<<> Maybe you should attempt readi
2405+ 12/01 jud spencer        Re: new survey<<On 12/1/96 9:03 PM, D. J. Bernst
2406+ 12/02 Jay@aol.com        Re: new survey<<In a message dated 96-12-02 00:4
2407+ 12/02 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-03.txt<<--Ne
2408+ 12/02 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2409+ 12/02 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 27 
2410+ 12/02 Chris Newman       Re: "." in phrase<<I've added a survey section t
2411+ 12/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<djb@koobera
2412+ 12/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: "." in phrase<<> I've > created separate col
2413+ 12/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> > Explain
2414+ 12/02 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<It seems to
2415+ 12/02 Mark Crispin       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> If a rela
2416+ 12/02 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 12/2/96 
2417+ 12/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> If it doe
2418+ 12/03 Philip Hazel       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Mon, 2 D
2419+ 12/03 Chris Newman       Re: "." in phrase<<Just to make sure I understan
2420+ 12/03 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On 12/3/96 
2421+ 12/03 Olle Jarnefors     Applicability of RFC 822 to News<<Kai Henningsen
2422+ 12/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: "." in phrase<<> If I use the header line > 
2423+ 12/03 Chris Newman       Re: Applicability of RFC 822 to News<<On Tue, 3 
2424+ 12/03 jkrey@isi.edu      Re: Appendix H, RFC821bis<<John and Folks, I thi
2425+ 12/03 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Preparation for IETF WG meeting<
2426+ 12/03 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 01:37 PM
2427+ 12/04 Paul Overell       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<In article 
2428+ 12/04 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 10:46 PM
2429+ 12/04 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<At 08:47 PM
2430+ 12/04 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 4 D
2431+ 12/04 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<On Wed, 4 D
2432+ 12/04 Kai Henningsen     Re: Applicability of RFC 822 to News<<ojarnef@ad
2433+ 12/04 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<djb@koobera
2434+ 12/04 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<paulo@turnp
2435+ 12/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> RFC822's 
2436+ 12/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> Note that
2437+ 12/04 Pete Resnick       Form of the Message Format document<<I'm not sur
2438+ 12/04 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<This might 
2439+ 12/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Form of the Message Format document<<> the s
2440+ 12/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> you can't
2441+ 12/04 Dave Crocker       DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<--============_-1362355
2442+ 12/05 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<Dave, nits: - you h
2443+ 12/05 Dave Crocker       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<Harald. At 3:58 AM 
2444+ 12/05 Jim Conklin        Re: Form of the Message Format document<<I'd lik
2445+ 12/05 "Jack De Winter"   Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<>Agreed. An
2446+ 12/05 Chris Newman       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<On Thu, 5 Dec 1996,
2447+ 12/05 Chris Newman       Re: Form of the Message Format document<<On Thu,
2448+ 12/05 Chris Newman       MTA action with illegal input<<On Thu, 5 Dec 199
2449+ 12/05 Dave Crocker       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<At 11:11 AM -0800 1
2450+ 12/05 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<On Thu, 5 Dec 1996,
2451+ 12/05 Paul Hoffman       Re: MTA action with illegal input<<>I'd be tempt
2452+ 12/05 Keith Moore        Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> This is a
2453+ 12/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MTA action with illegal input<<> Personally,
2454+ 12/05 Keith Moore        Re: MTA action with illegal input<<> Personally,
2455+ 12/05 Chris Newman       Re: MTA action with illegal input<<On Thu, 5 Dec
2456+ 12/05 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: MTA action with illegal input<<On Thu, 5 Dec
2457+ 12/05 Mark Crispin       Re: MTA action with illegal input<<On Thu, 05 De
2458+ 12/05 Chris Newman       Re: MTA action with illegal input<<On Thu, 5 Dec
2459+ 12/05 Keith Moore        Re: MTA action with illegal input<<> A relay's S
2460+ 12/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt<<> The right
2461+ 12/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MTA action with illegal input<<> In other wo
2462+ 12/05 Keith Moore        Re: MTA action with illegal input<<> On Thu, 5 D
2463+ 12/06 Keith Moore        Re: '.' in phrase<<> > Right now, I'm leaning in
2464+ 12/06 Paul Overell       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<In article <v03100b
2465+ 12/06 Chris Newman       Re: '.' in phrase<<On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Keith Moo
2466+ 12/06 Chris Newman       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<On Fri, 6 Dec 1996,
2467+ 12/06 "Jack De Winter"   why follow 821bis? was Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-
2468+ 12/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Form of the Message Format document<<Chris.N
2469+ 12/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Form of the Message Format document<<presnic
2470+ 12/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: MTA action with illegal input<<Chris.Newman@
2471+ 12/06 Keith Moore        Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<> > > 4 name ;liter
2472+ 12/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: '.' in phrase<<So does everybody agree now t
2473+ 12/06 Keith Moore        Re: '.' in phrase<<> So does everybody agree now
2474+ 12/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: '.' in phrase<<> Personally, I'd say "MUST a
2475+ 12/07 Dave Crocker       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<At 3:04 PM -0800 12
2476+ 12/07 Christian Kuhtz    Re: '.' in phrase<<On 6 Dec 1996 23:21:59 -0000,
2477+ 12/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<moore@cs.utk.edu (K
2478+ 12/07 Kai Henningsen     Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<Chris.Newman@innoso
2479+ 12/07 Chris Newman       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<On Sat, 7 Dec 1996,
2480+ 12/07 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<dave, the definitio
2481+ 12/08 Dave Crocker       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<At 02:29 PM -0800 1
2482+ 12/08 Pete Resnick       Re: Form of the Message Format document<<On 12/4
2483+ 12/08 Pete Resnick       Message Format issues<<Here are a few things for
2484+ 12/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Form of the Message Format document<<> Code 
2485+ 12/08 Jim Conklin        Re: MTA action with illegal input<<At 2:37 PM 12
2486+ 12/09 Randall Gellens    Re: MTA action with illegal input<<At 2:48 PM -0
2487+ 12/09 Ofer Inbar         blank line as head/body separator<<For the purpo
2488+ 12/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Form of the Message Format document<<It seem
2489+ 12/09 Ofer Inbar         Source Routing confusion<<I guess several of us 
2490+ 12/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> I belie
2491+ 12/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Form of the Message Format document<<> But l
2492+ 12/10 Jim Conklin        Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<Here are a few ques
2493+ 12/10 John C Klensin     Re: Source Routing confusion<<At 20:19 96.12.09 
2494+ 12/11 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 19:33 
2495+ 12/11 John Gardiner Mye  Large Site MX document<<I would appreciate revie
2496+ 12/11 Jay@aol.com        Re: Large Site MX document<<I think the document
2497+ 12/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Large Site MX document<<The client SHOULDs h
2498+ 12/11 Marco S Hyman      Re: blank line as head/body separator<<John C Kl
2499+ 12/11 Ofer Inbar         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Marco S H
2500+ 12/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Whateve
2501+ 12/11 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 11, 12:16pm, 
2502+ 12/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Large Site MX document<<Brad: I CC'ed a copy
2503+ 12/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Large Site MX document<<"D. J. Bernstein" <d
2504+ 12/11 Paul A Vixie       Re: Large Site MX document<<use SRV >>
2505+ 12/11 Jay@aol.com        Re: Large Site MX document<<In a message dated 9
2506+ 12/11 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 11, 5:15pm, J
2507+ 12/11 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Large Site MX document<<Paul A Vixie <paul@v
2509+ 12/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Large Site MX document<<> qmail may have sur
2510+ 12/11 Paul A Vixie       Re: Large Site MX document<<srv was a point solu
2511+ 12/12 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 11, 7:49pm, P
2512+ 12/11 Paul A Vixie       Re: Large Site MX document<<> The problem is not
2513+ 12/12 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 11, 10:11pm, 
2514+ 12/11 Paul A Vixie       Re: Large Site MX document<<> > if you care abou
2515+ 12/12 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 11, 11:00pm, 
2516+ 12/12 Philip Hazel       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Whateve
2517+ 12/12 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Large Site MX document<<"Brad Knowles" <BKno
2519+ 12/12 Randall Gellens    New mailing list<<A new mailing list has been cr
2520+ 12/12 Paul A Vixie       Re: Large Site MX document<<> > if your routers,
2521+ 12/13 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 12, 9:02pm, P
2522+ 12/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  a modest proposal<<A modest proposal for reducin
2523+ 12/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message Format issues<<presnick@qualcomm.com
2524+ 12/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<cos@leftb
2525+ 12/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: Form of the Message Format document<<presnic
2526+ 12/14 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<My proble
2527+ 12/14 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Large Site MX document<<> Why no more than 9
2529+ 12/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Thus on
2530+ 12/15 Dave Crocker       Re: DRAFT-DRUMS-ABNF-03.txt<<At 9:11 AM -0800 12
2531+ 12/16 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Large Site MX document<<On Dec 14, 2:48pm, J
2532+ 12/16 Ofer Inbar         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Philip Ha
2533+ 12/16 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 2:29 P
2534+ 12/16 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 01:15 
2535+ 12/16 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Jack, you
2536+ 12/16 Michael D'Errico   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> you sti
2537+ 12/16 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 3:12 P
2538+ 12/16 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Large Site MX document<<"Brad Knowles" <BKno
2539+ 12/16 Chris Newman       Re: a modest proposal<<On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, D. J
2540+ 12/16 Michael D'Errico   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> > Many 
2541+ 12/16 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 05:52 
2542+ 12/16 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 03:12 
2543+ 12/16 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 8:59 P
2544+ 12/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<[ invisib
2545+ 12/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> What ac
2546+ 12/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: a modest proposal<<> the interoperability pr
2547+ 12/16 Ofer Inbar         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<"D. J. Be
2548+ 12/17 "Jack De Winter"   Re: a modest proposal<<At 03:58 AM 12/17/96 -000
2549+ 12/18 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-myers-mail-largesite-00.txt<<--
2550+ 12/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> > (3) T
2551+ 12/18 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 18 Dec
2552+ 12/18 Marco S Hyman      Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Okay. S
2553+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> The imp
2554+ 12/18 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 19 Dec
2555+ 12/18 Pete Resnick       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 12/18/
2556+ 12/18 Ofer Inbar         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> > Okay.
2557+ 12/18 Ofer Inbar         The string after HELO<<At the session in San Jos
2558+ 12/18 Pete Resnick       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 12/18/
2559+ 12/18 Keith Moore        Re: The string after HELO<<> So, back to my orig
2560+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> No. The
2561+ 12/19 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<>Folks wh
2562+ 12/18 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The string after HELO<<On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, 
2563+ 12/19 Keith Moore        Re: The string after HELO<<> What about a bare I
2564+ 12/19 "Jack De Winter"   Re: The string after HELO<<>> Explanation: If a 
2565+ 12/19 Pete Resnick       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 12/18/
2566+ 12/18 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The string after HELO<<On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, 
2567+ 12/18 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The string after HELO<<On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, 
2568+ 12/19 Keith Moore        Re: The string after HELO<<> > > What about a ba
2569+ 12/18 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The string after HELO<<On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, 
2570+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Resnick s
2571+ 12/19 Pete Resnick       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 12/19/
2572+ 12/19 bill@attmail.com   RE: The string after HELO<<cos> 5.2.5 HELO Comma
2573+ 12/19 John C Klensin     Re: The string after HELO<<On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 0
2574+ 12/19 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 12:59 
2575+ 12/19 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 5:52 A
2576+ 12/19 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 8:17 A
2577+ 12/19 Randall Gellens    Re: MTA action with illegal input<<Chris Newman 
2578+ 12/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> I do no
2579+ 12/20 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 08:14 
2580+ 12/20 Chris Newman       DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<This message is in 
2581+ 12/20 "Avi Rappoport"    RE: DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<I am out of the
2582+ 12/22 Keith Moore        small nit re: DRUMS Minutes<<> (b) The group fee
2583+ 12/22 Robert Elz         Re: DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<This is not a c
2584+ 12/22 "Jack De Winter"   regarding the use of dot atoms<<I was just doubl
2585+ 12/23 Philip Hazel       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Fri, 2
2586+ 12/23 Jim Conklin        Re: DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<At 5:02 AM 12/2
2587+ 12/23 "Jack De Winter"   Re: DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<At 11:14 AM 12/
2588+ 12/23 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 09:36 
2589+ 12/23 Pete Resnick       Re: regarding the use of dot atoms<<On 12/22/96 
2590+ 12/23 Marco S Hyman      Re: regarding the use of dot atoms<<Pete Resnick
2591+ 12/23 Pete Resnick       Re: regarding the use of dot atoms<<On 12/23/96 
2592+ 12/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> I wrote
2593+ 12/26 Randall Gellens    Re: blank line as head/body separator<<At 1:43 P
2594+ 12/27 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Thu, 2
2595+ 12/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: a modest proposal<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu 
2596+ 12/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: The string after HELO<<gjw@wnetc.com (Gregor
2597+ 12/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: DRUMS Minutes from San Jose<<kre@munnari.OZ.
2598+ 12/30 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Dec 25
2599+ 12/30 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Mon, 3
2600+ 12/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Sounds 
2601+ 12/30 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Dec 30
2602+ 12/30 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Mon, 3
2603+ 12/30 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<I have to
2604+ 12/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<But the b
2605+ 12/31 Jay@aol.com        Re: blank line as head/body separator<<In a mess
2606+ 12/30 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Tue, 3
2607+ 12/31 Jay@aol.com        Re: blank line as head/body separator<<In a mess
2608+ 12/31 "Claudio Allocchi  Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2609+ 12/31 Philip Hazel       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Mon, 3
2610+ 12/31 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<mrc@CAC.W
2611+ 12/31 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<BKnowles@
2612+ 12/31 bill@attmail.com   Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2613+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Dec 31
2614+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Dec 31
2615+ 12/31 Philip Hazel       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Tue, 3
2616+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2617+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Dec 31
2618+ 12/31 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2619+ 12/31 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2620+ 12/31 John C Klensin     Case sensitivity (was: Re: blank line as head/bo
2621+ 12/31 Marco S Hyman      Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2622+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2623+ 12/31 "Brad Knowles"     Re: Case sensitivity (was: Re: blank line as hea
2624+ 12/31 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2625+ 12/31 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Right. 
2626+ 12/31 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2627+ 12/31 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2628+ 01/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2629+ 01/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<BKnowles@
2630+ 01/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2631+ 01/01 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2632+ 01/01 "Jack De Winter"   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<>Yes. It 
2633+ 01/01 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Wed, 0
2634+ 01/01 John C Klensin     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Jack, Wit
2635+ 01/01 "Nathaniel D. Daw  confusion about DATA termination<<I'm implementi
2636+ 01/02 Robert Elz         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<Date: Wed
2637+ 01/02 "Claudio Allocchi  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<>From: (R
2638+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Dan Ber
2639+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Other t
2640+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Case sensitivity (was: Re: blank line as hea
2641+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2642+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator (actually:
2643+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Why is 
2644+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  case sensitivity<<> there is no technical reason
2645+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> You are
2646+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> Not to 
2647+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> telling
2648+ 01/02 Philip Hazel       Re: case sensitivity<<On 2 Jan 1997, D. J. Berns
2649+ 01/02 Robert Elz         Re: case sensitivity<<Date: 2 Jan 1997 08:12:40 
2650+ 01/02 Matti Aarnio       Re: confusion about DATA termination<<> I'm impl
2651+ 01/02 Matti Aarnio       Re: case sensitivity<<> Date: 2 Jan 1997 08:12:4
2652+ 01/02 "Claudio Allocchi  Fax and E-mail addressing formats: a format prop
2653+ 01/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: Case sensitivity<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (
2654+ 01/02 Nathaniel D. Daw   Re: confusion about DATA termination<<Matti Aarn
2655+ 01/02 "Brad Knowles"     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Jan 1,
2656+ 01/02 "Jack De Winter"   Re: confusion about DATA termination<<>> In seve
2657+ 01/02 "Jack De Winter"   Re: case sensitivity<<>Sendmail sends "MAIL From
2658+ 01/02 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 2 Jan 
2659+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> Sendmail sends "MAIL Fro
2660+ 01/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Case sensitivity<<> In fact, there have been
2661+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> RFC 128
2662+ 01/02 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 3 Jan 
2663+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> This is
2664+ 01/03 Robert Elz         Re: case sensitivity<<Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:2
2665+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> if MAIL is to be case se
2666+ 01/03 Robert Elz         Re: case sensitivity<<Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 12:
2667+ 01/03 Robert Elz         Re: case sensitivity<<Date: 3 Jan 1997 02:24:54 
2668+ 01/02 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> I have 
2669+ 01/02 Mike O'Dell        my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<for some reason,
2670+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> That also doesn't apply 
2671+ 01/02 Pete Resnick       Re: case sensitivity<<On 1/2/97 at 9:54 PM -0600
2672+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> If you're now proposing 
2673+ 01/03 Pete Resnick       Re: case sensitivity<<On 1/3/97 at 12:53 AM -060
2674+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> RFC 822
2675+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<> the notion
2676+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<> the notion
2677+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<> the notion
2678+ 01/03 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 3 Jan 
2679+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> > Comments are case-sens
2680+ 01/03 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: case sensitivity<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes: 
2681+ 01/03 Dave Crocker       Re: case sensitivity<<At 10:53 PM -0800 1/2/97, 
2682+ 01/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Case sensitivity<<djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (
2683+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> when the task is matchin
2684+ 01/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<MRC@Panda
2685+ 01/03 "Nathaniel D. Daw  failure during DATA transmission<<Another goofy 
2686+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> There w
2687+ 01/03 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 03 Jan
2688+ 01/03 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On 3 Jan 
2689+ 01/03 Dave Crocker       Re: case sensitivity<<At 11:23 AM -0800 1/3/97, 
2690+ 01/03 Larry Masinter     Re: Fax and E-mail addressing formats: a format 
2691+ 01/03 Michael D'Errico   Re: failure during DATA transmission<<> What's t
2692+ 01/03 Michael D'Errico   Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> > > The
2693+ 01/03 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: failure during DATA transmission<<On Fri, 3 
2694+ 01/03 Mark Crispin       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Fri, 0
2695+ 01/03 "Brad Knowles"     Re: failure during DATA transmission<<On Jan 3, 
2696+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> yes, it's clear that tha
2697+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> The "re
2698+ 01/03 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<> They we
2699+ 01/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<MRC@Panda
2700+ 01/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: blank line as head/body separator<<MRC@Panda
2701+ 01/06 Alan Barrett       Re: case sensitivity<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koo
2702+ 01/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: case sensitivity<<> The fact that it was in 
2703+ 01/06 Keith Moore        Re: case sensitivity<<> Future implementors (as 
2704+ 01/06 Randall Gellens    Re: failure during DATA transmission<<At 1:47 PM
2705+ 01/06 Randall Gellens    Re: Blank Line as Header/Body Separator (was "Ca
2706+ 01/07 Philip Hazel       LF vs CRLF<<I fear this will start another flame
2707+ 01/07 "Jack De Winter"   Re: LF vs CRLF<<>However, it appears that there 
2708+ 01/07 Paul Hethmon       Re: LF vs CRLF<<Addressed to: "Jack De Winter" <
2709+ 01/07 Philip Hazel       Re: LF vs CRLF<<On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jack De Wint
2710+ 01/07 "Jack De Winter"   Re: LF vs CRLF<<Okay, let me try and restate tha
2711+ 01/07 Tim Goodwin        Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<> the notion
2712+ 01/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: LF vs CRLF<<> However, it appears that there
2713+ 01/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: LF vs CRLF<<> > (1) Please can we think abou
2714+ 01/07 Dave Crocker       Re: LF vs CRLF<<At 3:25 AM -0800 1/7/97, Philip 
2715+ 01/08 Jerome Abela       Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<On Jan 7, Ti
2716+ 01/08 Tim Goodwin        Re: my 2 cents on this lofty topic<<> Do you mea
2717+ 01/12 "Claudio Allocchi  FAX Addressing: a detailed proposal with 2 alter
2718+ 01/12 "Claudio Allocchi  comments on ietf-fax@imc.org PLEASE!<<... just f
2719+ 01/12 "Frode Hernes"     FAX Addressing: some comments<<Claudio, (and any
2720+ 01/13 "Claudio Allocchi  Re: FAX Addressing: some comments<<>Just for the
2721+ 01/14 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Complaints about disruptive memb
2722+ 01/14 Chris Newman       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Fri, 3
2723+ 01/14 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Response to Mark's complaint (wa
2724+ 01/14 Chris Newman       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Thu, 2
2725+ 01/14 Chris Newman       Re: blank line as head/body separator<<On Fri, 3
2726+ 01/14 "Perry E. Metzger  "be liberal, be conservative" and junky addresse
2727+ 01/14 Chris Newman       From the chair: call for concensus<<This is a on
2728+ 01/15 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-hoffman-mailto-url-00.txt<<>> it's eas
2729+ 01/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<Chris.Ne
2730+ 01/15 Chris Newman       observations of 821/822 brokenness<<I added a se
2731+ 01/16 "Claudio Allocchi  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<It look 
2732+ 01/16 "Nathaniel D. Daw  LF and mail clients<<I'm sorry to bother the gro
2733+ 01/17 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.txt<<-
2734+ 01/17 Chris Newman       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.tx
2735+ 01/17 Dave Crocker       Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.tx
2736+ 01/17 Keith Moore        comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.txt<<
2737+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<> (1) RF
2738+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: LF and mail clients<<> Is this only after co
2739+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.tx
2740+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2741+ 01/18 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2742+ 01/18 Christian Kuhtz    Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2743+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2744+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2745+ 01/18 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2746+ 01/18 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2747+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2748+ 01/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2749+ 01/18 Christian Kuhtz    Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2750+ 01/18 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2751+ 01/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2752+ 01/19 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2753+ 01/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2754+ 01/19 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2755+ 01/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2756+ 01/19 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2757+ 01/19 Kai Henningsen     Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2758+ 01/19 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2759+ 01/19 Marco S Hyman      Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2760+ 01/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2761+ 01/19 Keith Moore        Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2762+ 01/19 Pete Resnick       Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2763+ 01/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2764+ 01/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2765+ 01/19 Christian Kuhtz    Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2766+ 01/19 Pete Resnick       Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2767+ 01/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2768+ 01/19 Larry Masinter     Re: draft-hoffman-mailto-url-00.txt<<There are t
2769+ 01/20 Christian Kuhtz    Re: draft-hoffman-mailto-url-00.txt<<On Sun, 19 
2770+ 01/21 Robert Elz         Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2771+ 01/20 Jacob Palme        E-mail registry<<A couple of months I put in a p
2772+ 01/20 Ofer Inbar         header registry & layering<<After reading Keith 
2773+ 01/20 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: header registry & layering<<On Mon, 20 Jan 1
2774+ 01/20 ed.owens@slc.eslt  Re: Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-
2775+ 01/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2776+ 01/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: header registry & layering<<> - A registry o
2777+ 01/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  bad idea to discard envelopes
2779+ 01/20 "Brad Knowles"     Re: comments on draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.t
2780+ 01/21 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-hoffman-mailto-url-00.txt<<At 5:01 AM 
2781+ 01/21 Chris Newman       Re: E-mail registry<<Historically, RFC 822 heade
2782+ 01/21 Chris Newman       Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<Item (2)
2783+ 01/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<> If not
2784+ 01/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: E-mail registry<<> (1) Anyone can register a
2785+ 01/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<"D. J. B
2786+ 01/22 Alan Barrett       Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<> Dan Be
2787+ 01/22 Paul Overell       Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<In artic
2788+ 01/22 Chris Newman       From the chair: process for list concensus<<On W
2789+ 01/22 Ofer Inbar         Re: header registry & layering<<> It seems to me
2790+ 01/22 Christian Kuhtz    Re: E-mail registry<<On 22 Jan 1997 09:15:39 -00
2791+ 01/22 Christian Kuhtz    V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Tue, 21 J
2792+ 01/22 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: E-mail registry<<> From: Christian Kuhtz <ku
2793+ 01/22 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: header registry & layering<<I don't object t
2794+ 01/22 Christian Kuhtz    Re: E-mail registry<<On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:48:1
2795+ 01/22 Chris Newman       invisible continuation lines<<Since it appears w
2796+ 01/22 Chris Newman       Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Wed, 
2797+ 01/22 Ofer Inbar         Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<Chris Ne
2798+ 01/22 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Wed, 
2799+ 01/22 "Brad Knowles"     Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Jan 2
2800+ 01/23 Philip Hazel       The VERB command<<Yesterday I was made aware of 
2801+ 01/23 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The VERB command<<I use Pine 3.95 and have s
2802+ 01/23 Ofer Inbar         Re: blank line as head/body separator<<There hav
2803+ 01/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> I'm so
2804+ 01/23 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> eMail 
2805+ 01/23 Keith Moore        Re: The VERB command<<> Is this yet another feat
2806+ 01/23 Ofer Inbar         Re: The VERB command<<> Yesterday I was made awa
2807+ 01/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: blank line as head/body separator<<[ invisib
2808+ 01/23 Dave Barr          Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<(yeah, I
2809+ 01/23 Pete Resnick       Re: invisible continuation lines<<On 1/22/97 at 
2810+ 01/23 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On 23 Ja
2811+ 01/23 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Thu, 
2812+ 01/23 Dave Barr          Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<In messa
2813+ 01/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> Why sh
2814+ 01/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: The VERB command<<> I was able to find only 
2815+ 01/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  case-by-case delegation<<Keith and Dave have mad
2816+ 01/23 Christian Kuhtz    registry (Re: case-by-case delegation)<<On 24 Ja
2817+ 01/24 Philip Hazel       Re: The VERB command<<On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Ofer 
2818+ 01/24 Philip Hazel       Re: invisible continuation lines<<On Thu, 23 Jan
2819+ 01/24 Peter Sylvester    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<Well, wh
2820+ 01/24 Peter Sylvester    Re: invisible continuation lines<<> > 2. I don't
2821+ 01/24 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: The VERB command<<> From: Philip Hazel <ph10
2822+ 01/24 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: The VERB command<<On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Micha
2823+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   regarding messages from automated sources<<Okay,
2824+ 01/24 Jim Conklin        Re: invisible continuation lines<<At 4:48 PM 1/2
2825+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: header registry & layering<<> - A registry o
2826+ 01/24 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<W
2827+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<>Dan Ber
2828+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<>People 
2829+ 01/24 Pete Resnick       Re: invisible continuation lines<<On 1/24/97 at 
2830+ 01/24 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > Vend
2831+ 01/24 John Gardiner Mye  Re: invisible continuation lines<<I'm wondering 
2832+ 01/24 John Gardiner Mye  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<"Jack De
2833+ 01/24 John Gardiner Mye  Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<M
2834+ 01/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<> > MUST
2835+ 01/24 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Fri, 
2836+ 01/24 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Fri, 
2837+ 01/24 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<O
2838+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<At 09:03
2839+ 01/24 "Jack De Winter"   Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<A
2840+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> On Fri
2841+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > "X-"
2842+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<>
2843+ 01/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> X-Vend
2844+ 01/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > So, 
2845+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > X-Ve
2846+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > > So
2847+ 01/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> It hur
2848+ 01/25 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> > It h
2849+ 01/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  delegation<<The proposal is to delegate new fiel
2850+ 01/25 Christian Kuhtz    V-*-* namespace discussion<<Btw: as Keith just s
2851+ 01/25 Marco S Hyman      Re: date creation<<Keith Moore writes: > > Perfe
2852+ 01/27 John C Klensin     Re: The VERB command<<At 09:37 97.01.23 +0000, P
2853+ 01/27 John C Klensin     Re: date creation<<At 20:18 97.01.25 -0800, Marc
2854+ 01/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<moore@cs
2855+ 01/27 John Gardiner Mye  Re: regarding messages from automated sources<<A
2856+ 01/29 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Thu, 
2857+ 01/29 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: The VERB command<<On 23 Jan 1997 23:17:55 -0
2858+ 01/29 Keith Moore        Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<> The X*
2859+ 01/29 Michael D'Errico   Re: The VERB command<<> > The following SMTP ser
2860+ 01/29 Christian Kuhtz    Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<On Wed, 
2861+ 02/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: V-<vendor>-* (Re: E-mail registry)<<lyndon@e
2862+ 02/03 Chris Newman       Re: From the chair: call for concensus<<On Sat, 
2863+ 02/03 Chris Newman       From the Chair: Status update<<In an attempt to 
2864+ 02/13 Brad Knowles       Accepting source routes?<<Folks, I've started sc
2865+ 02/13 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Accepting source routes?<<At 12:27 PM 2/13/9
2866+ 02/13 Brad Knowles       Re: Accepting source routes?<<Your message dated
2867+ 02/13 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Accepting source routes?<<> Well, simple-min
2868+ 02/13 Keith Moore        Re: Accepting source routes?<<> If it's not alre
2869+ 02/13 Brad Knowles       Re: Accepting source routes?<<Your message dated
2870+ 02/13 Keith Moore        Re: Accepting source routes?<<> > I don't want t
2871+ 02/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  timeout example<<Some time ago Keith and Ned pro
2872+ 02/19 Keith Moore        Re: timeout example<<> From: "D. J. Bernstein" <
2873+ 02/21 Dave Crocker       MailConnect 2 interoperability event<<=46olks, T
2874+ 03/05 Dave Crocker       MailConnect 2 / 26-27 March 97: Email Interopera
2875+ 03/12 "Jack De Winter"   <<I just want to make sure that this is addresse
2876+ 03/21 "Jack De Winter"   regarding extensions...<<Just wanted to double c
2877+ 03/21 John C Klensin     Re: regarding extensions...<<On Fri, 21 Mar 1997
2878+ 03/22 Paul Hoffman       Re: regarding extensions...<<At 4:31 PM -0800 3/
2879+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Updated drafts?<<I kind of hate to ask this, but
2880+ 03/25 Paul Overell       Null reverse path on non-error messages<<In an a
2881+ 03/25 John C Klensin     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2882+ 03/25 John C Klensin     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2883+ 03/25 Philip Hazel       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2884+ 03/25 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<The
2885+ 03/25 Philip Hazel       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2886+ 03/25 John C Klensin     Re: RE: Null reverse path on non-error messages<
2887+ 03/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<ph1
2888+ 03/25 John C Klensin     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2889+ 03/25 Ran Atkinson       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2890+ 03/25 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<I w
2891+ 03/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<> N
2892+ 03/25 Brad Knowles       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<You
2893+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<> I
2894+ 03/25 Brad Knowles       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<You
2895+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<> >
2896+ 03/25 Brad Knowles       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<You
2897+ 03/26 Philip Hazel       Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<On 
2898+ 03/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<BKn
2899+ 03/26 Ofer Inbar         Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<> S
2900+ 03/26 "Jack De Winter"   regarding some of the more obscure DNS records a
2901+ 03/26 Brad Knowles       Re: regarding some of the more obscure DNS recor
2902+ 03/26 John C Klensin     Re: Null reverse path on non-error messages<<Pau
2903+ 03/26 John C Klensin     Re: regarding some of the more obscure DNS recor
2904+ 03/28 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-01.txt<<--============_
2905+ 03/28 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt<<--Ne
2906+ 03/28 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-02.txt<<--NextP
2907+ 03/31 Bill McQuillan     Comments on abnf-02<<*** Comments on: Augmented 
2908+ 03/31 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on abnf-02<<On 3/31/97 at 12:26 PM 
2909+ 03/31 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on abnf-02<<> That is to say, how S
2910+ 03/31 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on abnf-02<<On 3/31/97 at 6:46 PM -
2911+ 03/31 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on abnf-02<<> I think this argument
2912+ 04/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Comments on abnf-02<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith
2913+ 04/01 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on abnf-02<<> > There is an obvious
2914+ 04/03 Bill McQuillan     Issues in msg-fmt-01<<Issues in: Network Working
2915+ 04/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: Comments on abnf-02<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith
2916+ 04/07 Paul Overell       Reject MAIL FROM with 550<<We wish to enhance ou
2917+ 04/08 Philip Hazel       Re: Reject MAIL FROM with 550<<On Mon, 7 Apr 199
2918+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Can you send replies anywhere you want?<<Can you
2919+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Maximum line length 78 or 80 characters?<<Maximu
2920+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Replying to a mailing list<<Replying to a mailin
2921+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<How t
2922+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Mandatory and optional header fields<<Mandatory 
2923+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        When should Message-ID be changed and when not?<
2924+ 04/07 John C Klensin     Re: Reject MAIL FROM with 550<<At 17:58 97.04.07
2925+ 04/07 John C Klensin     Re: Reject MAIL FROM with 550<<At 09:00 97.04.08
2926+ 04/08 Paul Overell       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<In article <v030
2927+ 04/08 Philip Hazel       Re: Reject MAIL FROM with 550<<On Mon, 7 Apr 199
2928+ 04/08 Peter Sylvester    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<2 s
2929+ 04/08 John Martin        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 1:54 pm +0100
2930+ 04/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: Replying to a mailing list<<martin@terena.nl
2931+ 04/09 "Roger Fajman"     Re: When should Message-ID be changed and when n
2932+ 04/09 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Maximum line length 78 or 80 characters?<<> 
2933+ 04/09 Jacob Palme        Modify while relaying or forwarding<<Should we w
2934+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<O
2935+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<On 4/8/97 at 7:1
2936+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Mandatory and optional header fields<<On 4/8
2937+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Modify while relaying or forwarding<<Let me 
2938+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Can you send replies anywhere you want?<<On 
2939+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list<<| For another pe
2940+ 04/10 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list<<> | For another 
2941+ 04/10 Chris Newman       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<On Tue, 8 Apr 19
2942+ 04/10 Chris Newman       Re: Maximum line length 78 or 80 characters?<<I 
2943+ 04/10 Chris Newman       Re: Mandatory and optional header fields<<On Wed
2944+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 13:54 +0100 9
2945+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<At 
2946+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 10:47 -0500 9
2947+ 04/11 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Replying to a mailing list<<>At 23:44 -0700 
2948+ 04/11 Brad Knowles       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<Your message dat
2949+ 04/12 Keith Moore        Re: How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<>
2950+ 04/13 Keith Moore        Re: When should Message-ID be changed and when n
2951+ 04/14 Chris Newman       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<On Fri, 11 Apr 1
2952+ 04/14 Chris Newman       ABNF near finished?<<At the IETF meeting, we spe
2953+ 04/14 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> (2) Range notation ne
2954+ 04/14 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> (4) Case-sensitive st
2955+ 04/14 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> Given these decisions
2956+ 04/14 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF near finished?<<At 5:31 PM -0700 4/14/9
2957+ 04/15 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> At 5:31 PM -0700 4/14
2958+ 04/15 Chris Newman       Re: ABNF near finished?<<On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Ro
2959+ 04/15 John C Klensin     Re: starting characters in domain names<<At 15:5
2960+ 04/16 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> >
2961+ 04/16 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> It bothers me a bit t
2962+ 04/16 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> >
2963+ 04/16 Peter Sylvester    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> >
2964+ 04/16 Pete Resnick       Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2965+ 04/16 Chris Newman       Re: ABNF near finished?<<On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Ro
2966+ 04/16 Chris Newman       Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2967+ 04/16 Peter Sylvester    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> >
2968+ 04/16 Peter Sylvester    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> >
2969+ 04/16 Rob Earhart        Re: ABNF near finished?<<Chris Newman <Chris.New
2970+ 04/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Why
2971+ 04/16 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2972+ 04/16 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2973+ 04/16 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> '
2974+ 04/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> I
2975+ 04/16 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2976+ 04/16 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF near finished?<<> > Here's another sugg
2977+ 04/16 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> "
2978+ 04/16 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> P
2979+ 04/16 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2980+ 04/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> t
2981+ 04/17 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<not
2982+ 04/17 John C Klensin     Re: ABNF near finished?<<On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:
2983+ 04/17 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Dat
2984+ 04/17 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2985+ 04/17 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> W
2986+ 04/17 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Dat
2987+ 04/17 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
2988+ 04/17 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> I
2989+ 04/17 "Bart Schaefer"    Reply-To as a restriction rather than a redirect
2990+ 04/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> T
2991+ 04/17 Tom Hastings       Use of "-" for range in ABNF: confusion with "-"
2992+ 04/17 Keith Moore        Re: Use of "-" for range in ABNF: confusion with
2993+ 04/17 Chris Newman       Re: Use of "-" for range in ABNF: confusion with
2994+ 04/18 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Dat
2995+ 04/18 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Ple
2996+ 04/18 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-01.txt<<--Ne
2997+ 04/19 Robert Elz         Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Thi
2998+ 04/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 15:56 -0700 9
2999+ 04/18 Jacob Palme        Re: How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<A
3000+ 04/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<At 
3001+ 04/18 Jacob Palme        Re: When should Message-ID be changed and when n
3002+ 04/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<Sev
3003+ 04/18 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
3004+ 04/18 Chris Newman       Re: Replying to a mailing list<<On Fri, 18 Apr 1
3005+ 04/18 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> T
3006+ 04/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list<<> * default repl
3007+ 04/18 Keith Moore        Re: When should Message-ID be changed and when n
3008+ 04/18 Keith Moore        Re: How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<>
3009+ 04/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> I
3010+ 04/18 "Bart Schaefer"    Rough consensus on reply-to?<<On Apr 18, 9:52am,
3011+ 04/18 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
3012+ 04/18 Keith Moore        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> S
3013+ 04/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> M
3014+ 04/18 Chris Newman       Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
3015+ 04/18 Bill McQuillan     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<On 
3016+ 04/18 Keith Moore        How Reply SHOULD Work<<Yesterday I wrote a long 
3017+ 04/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Keith Moore writes: >
3018+ 04/18 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Apr 18, 6:31pm, Ke
3019+ 04/18 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> > Subject: How Repl
3020+ 04/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> A
3021+ 04/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  reply terminology<<> How about "simple reply"? S
3022+ 04/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> W
3023+ 04/18 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: reply terminology<<On Apr 19, 2:43am, D. J. 
3024+ 04/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Use of '-' for range in ABNF: confusion with
3025+ 04/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list<<> We can't use t
3026+ 04/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Rough consensus on reply-to?<<> I thought th
3027+ 04/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> 2. For EVERY OTHER 
3028+ 04/19 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> T
3029+ 04/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<> I
3030+ 04/19 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<"D.
3031+ 04/19 Jacob Palme        Re: How to ensure globally unique Message-IDs<<A
3032+ 04/19 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 09:52 -0700 9
3033+ 04/19 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list<<At 09:52 -0700 9
3034+ 04/20 Jacob Palme        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<At 18:31 -0400 97-04-
3035+ 04/20 Jacob Palme        Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<At 
3036+ 04/19 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To as a restriction rather than a redi
3037+ 04/20 Peter Sylvester    dicating user interface behaviour<<The draft rfc
3038+ 04/20 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Replying to a mailing list<<The term "mailin
3039+ 04/20 Peter Sylvester    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Keith Moore writes: >
3040+ 04/20 Peter Sylvester    Re: Replying to a mailing list<<> > It is OK wit
3041+ 04/20 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> I would agree compl
3042+ 04/20 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Keith Moore writes:
3043+ 04/20 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On Apr 20
3044+ 04/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Kei
3045+ 04/20 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> If you're arguing t
3046+ 04/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Kei
3047+ 04/20 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Personally, I feel 
3048+ 04/21 Paul Hoffman       Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<>IMHO, it's important
3049+ 04/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<It is inexcusable for
3050+ 04/21 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Yes, I insist on be
3051+ 04/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> I don't think 822bi
3052+ 04/22 "Jeff Stephenson   A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMTP<<R
3053+ 04/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3054+ 04/22 John C Klensin     Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3055+ 04/22 Keith Moore        Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3056+ 04/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3057+ 04/22 Jacob Palme        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<At 16:25 -0400 97-04-
3058+ 04/22 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Our task is to corr
3059+ 04/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Apr 22, 6:37pm, Ke
3060+ 04/22 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3061+ 04/23 "Roger Fajman"     ABNF grammar<<Here's an alternative grammar for 
3062+ 04/23 "Alain Zahm"       Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<---------- > De : Bar
3063+ 04/23 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Apr 23, 9:24am, Al
3064+ 04/23 Peter Sylvester    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Not many end users 
3065+ 04/23 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF grammar<<Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 01:32:3
3066+ 04/23 Richard Clayton    Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3067+ 04/23 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> I have never seen a
3068+ 04/23 Brad Knowles       Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3069+ 04/23 Brad Knowles       Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Your message dated: W
3070+ 04/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3071+ 04/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3072+ 04/23 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF grammar<<> I like some aspects of this,
3073+ 04/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF grammar<<Here's another pass at the ABN
3074+ 04/24 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF grammar<<Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:02:5
3075+ 04/24 Chris Newman       Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3076+ 04/24 Chris Newman       Re: ABNF grammar<<Here's how I'd do comments: ne
3077+ 04/24 Chris Newman       From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Here's a 
3078+ 04/24 Chris Newman       References + I-R-T (was Re: reply terminology)<<
3079+ 04/24 Chris Newman       Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On Sun, 2
3080+ 04/24 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On Apr 24
3081+ 04/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A question about RFC 1893 reply codes in SMT
3082+ 04/24 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Her
3083+ 04/24 John Beck          Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<CN> H
3084+ 04/24 John Beck          Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<I wro
3085+ 04/24 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3086+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<Chris.New
3087+ 04/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> At 
3088+ 04/24 John C Klensin     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On Fri, 2
3089+ 04/24 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3090+ 04/24 Ofer Inbar         Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> > 2
3091+ 04/24 Bill McQuillan     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Perha
3092+ 04/24 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> } I
3093+ 04/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: ABNF grammar<<> One fix might be > > cwsp = 
3094+ 04/25 Philip Hazel       Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On 25 Apr
3095+ 04/25 Alan Barrett       Re: ABNF grammar<<> Here's another try: This loo
3096+ 04/25 Robert Elz         Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Date:
3097+ 04/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3098+ 04/25 Robert Elz         Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Date:
3099+ 04/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3100+ 04/25 Steven Miller      Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<I und
3101+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<djb@k
3102+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<jbeck
3103+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<moore
3104+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<klensin@m
3106+ 04/25 John C Klensin     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<On Fri, 2
3107+ 04/25 Jacob Palme        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<At 10
3108+ 04/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> As 
3109+ 04/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> I a
3110+ 04/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Act
3111+ 04/25 "Alain Zahm"       Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<-----
3112+ 04/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3113+ 04/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3114+ 04/25 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Ins
3115+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<ph10@cus.
3116+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<schae
3117+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<schae
3118+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<Mille
3119+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: dicating user interface behaviour<<klensin@m
3120+ 04/25 John Beck          Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<jb> .
3121+ 04/25 John Beck          Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<kh> W
3122+ 04/25 John Beck          Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<djb> 
3123+ 04/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3124+ 04/25 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> > I
3125+ 04/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<jpalm
3126+ 04/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  user interfaces<<> Because answering your questi
3127+ 04/25 Pete Resnick       Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<I'm l
3128+ 04/25 ed.owens@slc.eslt  Re: Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<P
3129+ 04/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<schae
3130+ 04/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<presn
3131+ 04/26 Pete Resnick       Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On 4/
3132+ 04/26 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Ap
3133+ 04/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  ehlo survey
3134+ 04/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  ehlo survey<<Earlier today there were approximat
3135+ 04/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: ehlo survey<<Sorry for the blank message. He
3136+ 04/27 Matti Aarnio       Re: ehlo survey<<> Earlier today there were appr
3137+ 04/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: ehlo survey<<> And what share of those 85600
3138+ 04/28 Peter Sylvester    How Reply SHOULD Work<<> I mean when I use "Repl
3139+ 04/28 Peter Sylvester    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> kh>
3140+ 04/28 Peter Sylvester    Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> > P
3141+ 04/28 Chris Newman       User Interface recommendations
3143+ 04/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<presn
3144+ 04/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<schae
3145+ 04/28 "Roger Fajman"     Re: User Interface recommendations<<> However, t
3146+ 04/29 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: User Interface recommendations<<> -----Origi
3147+ 04/29 Ofer Inbar         Re: User Interface recommendations<<Chris Newman
3148+ 04/29 Pete Resnick       Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On 4/
3149+ 05/01 Keith Moore        Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> Hum
3150+ 05/01 Pete Resnick       Sets - revisited<<As many of you know, there was
3151+ 05/01 Pete Resnick       Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On 5/
3152+ 05/02 "Alain Zahm"       Re: Sets - revisited<<SET is an element that cau
3153+ 05/02 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Sets - revisited<<Alain, you write in respon
3154+ 05/02 Jacob Palme        822-bis should define useful terminology<<Beside
3155+ 05/02 "Alain Zahm"       Re: Sets - revisited<<> > SET is an element that
3156+ 05/02 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Sets - revisited<<Alain, > Unless I really m
3157+ 05/02 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: 822-bis should define useful terminology<<> 
3158+ 05/02 Chris Newman       Re: 822-bis should define useful terminology<<On
3159+ 05/04 Jacob Palme        Re: 822-bis should define useful terminology<<At
3160+ 05/07 Gregory C Sereda   SMTP Authentication<<Section 3.3 Mail Transactio
3161+ 05/07 Randall Gellens    Re: SMTP Authentication<<At 3:24 PM -0500 5/7/97
3162+ 05/08 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: reply terminology<<Bart Schaefer <schaefer@c
3163+ 05/08 Jacob Palme        MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a stand
3165+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: reply terminology<<> The point is that In-Re
3166+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3167+ 05/09 Chris Newman       Re: SMTP Authentication<<On Wed, 7 May 1997, Gre
3168+ 05/09 Chris Newman       Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3169+ 05/09 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3170+ 05/09 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: reply terminology<<On May 9, 5:03pm, D. J. B
3171+ 05/09 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3172+ 05/09 Brad Knowles       Comments on smtpupd-04.txt<<Folks, John has prev
3173+ 05/09 Kai Henningsen     Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3174+ 05/09 Chris Newman       Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3175+ 05/12 Ran Atkinson       Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3176+ 05/12 Brad Knowles       Re: MBOX format or Berkeley Mailbox Format - a s
3177+ 05/13 Jacob Palme        Re: reply terminology<<At 22:27 +0200 97-05-08, 
3178+ 05/13 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: reply terminology<<On May 13, 1:03pm, Jacob 
3179+ 05/13 Chris Newman       Memphis DRUMS minutes<<This message is in MIME f
3180+ 05/14 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Replying to a mailing list and Reply-To<<>I 
3181+ 05/15 Brad Knowles       RFC 821 to RFC 1893 mapping?<<Folks, In reading 
3182+ 05/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 821 to RFC 1893 mapping?<<> To wit, ther
3183+ 05/19 Keith Moore        Re: RFC 821 to RFC 1893 mapping?<<> In reading s
3184+ 06/02 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-05.txt<<--Ne
3185+ 06/16 "John Samanick"    Deferred Mail Delivery<<Greetings I'm doing some
3186+ 06/16 Chris Newman       Re: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Mon, 16 Jun 1997,
3187+ 06/16 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<Actually I can see s
3188+ 06/19 John C Klensin     Re: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Mon, 16 Jun 1
3189+ 06/19 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<Of _course_ you'
3190+ 06/19 "John Samanick"    Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<The organization 
3191+ 06/19 Chris Newman       Re: Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Thu, 19 Ju
3192+ 06/19 Keith Moore        Re: Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<The organizat
3193+ 06/19 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<John - Keith 
3194+ 06/19 Pete Resnick       Re: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On 6/19/97 at 7:52 A
3195+ 06/19 Chris Newman       RE: Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Thu, 19 Ju
3196+ 06/19 John C Klensin     Re: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 
3197+ 06/19 John C Klensin     Re: RE: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Thu, 19 J
3198+ 06/19 Pete Resnick       Re: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On 6/19/97 at 8:12 P
3199+ 06/19 Carl-Uno Manros    Re: RE: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<At 09:24 PM 
3200+ 06/20 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Deferred Mail Delivery<<Deferred delivery in
3201+ 06/20 John C Klensin     Re: RE: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery<<On Thu, 19 J
3202+ 06/20 Pete Resnick       In-Reply-To and References<<My apologies for sta
3203+ 06/20 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: In-Reply-To and References<<References: supp
3204+ 06/20 Ofer Inbar         Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On April 20th, 1997, 
3205+ 06/20 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<On Jun 20, 1:36pm, Of
3206+ 06/20 Chris Newman       Re: In-Reply-To and References<<On Fri, 20 Jun 1
3207+ 06/20 Pete Resnick       Re: In-Reply-To and References<<On 6/20/97 at 12
3208+ 06/20 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<--============_
3209+ 06/20 Keith Moore        Re: How Reply SHOULD Work<<> OK, I took the bait
3210+ 06/20 Keith Moore        Re: In-Reply-To and References<<> > I would not 
3211+ 06/21 Larry Campbell     Re: Re[3]: Deferred Mail Delivery<<In X.400, def
3212+ 06/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<presnick@qu
3213+ 06/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<presnick@qu
3214+ 06/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<presnick@qu
3215+ 06/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<presnick@qu
3216+ 06/22 Nick_Shelness/SSW  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<Pete, > dot
3217+ 06/22 Pete Resnick       Re: quoted-string in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02
3218+ 06/22 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments and white space in draft-ietf-drums
3219+ 06/22 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<On 6/22/97 
3220+ 06/22 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<On 6/21/97 
3221+ 06/25 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<--Ne
3222+ 06/25 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<--Ne
3223+ 06/29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<Pete Resnic
3224+ 06/29 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<On 6/29/97 
3225+ 06/29 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<On Jun 29, 
3226+ 06/29 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<On 6/29/97 
3227+ 06/30 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<Pete Resnic
3228+ 06/30 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  References/See-Also vs. In-Reply-To/References (
3229+ 06/30 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-msg-f
3230+ 06/30 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<There are r
3231+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: References/See-Also vs. In-Reply-To/Referenc
3232+ 06/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Resent section (Was: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fm
3233+ 07/30 Chris Newman       Happy Leap Second!<<--Boundary_(ID_E6ErJXcXT/TTs
3234+ 07/01 Robert Elz         Re: Happy Leap Second!<<Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 2
3235+ 07/01 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-m
3236+ 07/01 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-m
3237+ 07/01 Chris Newman       Re: Happy Leap Second!<<On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Robe
3238+ 07/01 Peter Sylvester    Re: Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-m
3239+ 07/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-m
3240+ 07/01 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Happy Leap Second!<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.
3241+ 07/01 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Message-ID creation<<Pete Resnick <presnick@
3242+ 07/02 "Jeff Stephenson   Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<We real
3243+ 07/02 Chris Newman       Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3244+ 07/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<X.4
3245+ 07/02 Keith Moore        Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<> W
3246+ 07/02 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3247+ 07/02 John C Klensin     Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3248+ 07/03 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3249+ 07/05 Keith Moore        Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<> G
3250+ 07/05 John C Klensin     Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3251+ 07/05 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<> F
3252+ 07/05 John C Klensin     Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3253+ 07/05 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<> F
3254+ 07/07 Peter Koch         MX handling and 5xx errors at low priority relay
3255+ 07/07 Brad Knowles       Re: MX handling and 5xx errors at low priority r
3256+ 07/07 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: MX handling and 5xx errors at low priority r
3257+ 07/08 Nick_Shelness@mot  MX Records and 4xx Responses<<All, Since we seem
3258+ 07/08 Philip Hazel       Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<On Tue, 8 Jul 
3259+ 07/08 John C Klensin     Re: MX handling and 5xx errors at low priority r
3260+ 07/08 Brad Knowles       Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<Your message d
3261+ 07/08 Brad Knowles       Re: MX handling and 5xx errors at low priority r
3262+ 07/08 "Jack De Winter"   regarding a response code of 571...<<I remember 
3263+ 07/08 Philip Hazel       Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<On Tue, 8 Jul 
3264+ 07/08 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<---
3265+ 07/08 Brad Knowles       Re: regarding a response code of 571...<<Your me
3266+ 07/08 Brad Knowles       Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<Your message d
3267+ 07/08 Bill McQuillan     Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<> A 5xx code m
3268+ 07/08 Brad Knowles       Re: MX Records and 4xx Responses<<Your message d
3269+ 07/12 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3270+ 07/12 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3271+ 07/12 John C Klensin     Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<On 
3272+ 07/15 Keith Moore        list breakdown<<Last Thursday or so, I introduce
3273+ 07/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<[ `
3274+ 07/17 Keith Moore        Re: Sizes in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd05.txt<<> `
3275+ 07/20 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: Sets - revisited<<For the record... At 01:53
3276+ 07/20 Dave Crocker / IM  draft-ietf-drums-abnf-06<<Folks, I have just sub
3277+ 07/21 Pete Resnick       Re: Sets - revisited<<On 7/20/97 at 6:27 PM -050
3278+ 07/21 Paul Overell       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-06<<In article <3.0.1.
3279+ 07/21 Dave Crocker / IM  concatenations vs. ONEOF range in -vals<<Folks, 
3280+ 07/21 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-06<<At 10:30 AM 7/21/9
3281+ 07/21 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-06<<On Sun, 20 Jul 199
3282+ 07/21 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-06<<At 09:08 AM 7/21/9
3283+ 07/21 Chris Newman       Munich agenda<<Now we have all the documents on 
3284+ 07/22 Robert Elz         Re: concatenations vs. ONEOF range in -vals<<Dat
3285+ 07/22 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt<<--NextP
3286+ 07/22 Dan Kohn           small comments on abnf-03<<ftp://ds.internic.net
3287+ 07/23 Robert Elz         Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Date: Tue, 22 Jul
3288+ 07/23 Robert Elz         A few more abnf-03 comments<<I think I'd probabl
3289+ 07/23 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: A few more abnf-03 comments<<At 10:20 PM 7/2
3290+ 07/23 Dave Crocker       Re: small comments on abnf-03<<At 03:22 PM 7/22/
3291+ 07/23 Chris Newman       Re: A few more abnf-03 comments<<On Wed, 23 Jul 
3292+ 07/23 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: A few more abnf-03 comments<<At 09:24 AM 7/2
3293+ 07/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<> >4) Your use of
3294+ 07/23 Pete Resnick       Re: A few more abnf-03 comments<<On 7/23/97 at 1
3295+ 07/23 Robert Herriot     questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt<<I 
3296+ 07/23 Dave Crocker / IM  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<At 01:24 PM 7/23/
3297+ 07/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Dave Crocker: > I
3298+ 07/23 Ran Atkinson       Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Postscript solves
3299+ 07/23 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<"Eric S. Raymond"
3300+ 07/23 Dan Kohn           Re: small comments on abnf-03<<On Wednesday, Jul
3301+ 07/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Perry Metzger: > 
3302+ 07/23 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Dan Kohn writes: 
3303+ 07/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Perry Metzger: > 
3304+ 07/24 Rob Earhart        Re: small comments on abnf-03<<"Eric S. Raymond"
3305+ 07/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Rob Earhart: > "E
3306+ 07/25 Robert Elz         HTML arguments<<Could all you you kind people pl
3307+ 07/25 Robert Elz         Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3308+ 07/24 Chris Newman       Re: small comments on abnf-03<<On Thu, 24 Jul 19
3309+ 07/24 Chris Newman       Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3310+ 07/24 Robert Herriot     Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3311+ 07/25 Robert Elz         Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3312+ 07/24 Keith Moore        Re: small comments on abnf-03<<> I don't object 
3313+ 07/24 Robert Herriot     Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3316+ 07/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: small comments on abnf-03<<Keith Moore: > I 
3317+ 07/24 Dave Crocker       Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3318+ 07/25 Dan Kohn           Re: small comments on abnf-03<<On Thursday, July
3319+ 07/25 Keith Moore        RFCs in HTML list<<Okay, to move discussion away
3320+ 07/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt<<Sorry to ta
3321+ 07/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Annouuncing an RFCs-in-HTML web pafe and first t
3322+ 07/30 John C Klensin     Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<I have just fo
3323+ 07/30 Chris Newman       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<On Wed, 30
3324+ 07/30 Chris Newman       From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<On Wed, 30 Jul 1997
3325+ 07/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: questions about draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt
3326+ 07/30 Michael D'Errico   Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> On Wed, 30 Ju
3327+ 07/30 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<On Jul 30, 1:05
3328+ 07/30 Chris Newman       Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<Speaking person
3329+ 07/30 Randall Gellens    Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<At 11:58 AM -07
3330+ 07/30 Michael D'Errico   Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> } I think 552
3331+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> Does anyone o
3332+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> RFC 821 is ve
3333+ 07/30 John Beck          Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<michael.derrico
3334+ 07/30 Chris Newman       From the Chair: ABNF last call<<I'd like to do a
3335+ 07/30 Bill McQuillan     Re: From the Chair: ABNF last call<<I have only 
3336+ 07/30 greg.vaudreuil@oc  Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<The use of 452 
3337+ 07/31 Paul Hethmon       Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<** Reply to not
3338+ 07/31 Robert Elz         Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<452 is clearly 
3339+ 07/31 Robert Elz         Re: From the Chair: ABNF last call<<Date: Wed, 3
3340+ 07/31 "Gordon Brown (Ex  Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<I'll add my voi
3341+ 07/31 Keith Moore        Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> > (ii) I beli
3342+ 07/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<> 2) Not Prefer
3343+ 07/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  function of reply codes<<> The subtle point (whi
3344+ 07/31 Chris Newman       Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<On Thu, 31 Jul 
3345+ 08/01 Matti Aarnio       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<Chris Newm
3346+ 07/31 Chris Newman       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<On Fri, 1 
3347+ 08/01 Matti Aarnio       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<Chris Newm
3348+ 08/01 Chris Newman       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<On Fri, 1 
3349+ 08/02 Matti Aarnio       Re: Status of 821bis & Munich agenda<<... > I th
3350+ 08/01 Randall Gellens    Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<At 2:44 PM -070
3351+ 08/03 John C Klensin     Re: From the chair: 552 vs. 452<<On Thu, 31 Jul 
3352+ 08/04 Jacob Palme        Mail Header Registration Procedure<<My IETF draf
3353+ 08/05 Chris Newman       Re: Mail Header Registration Procedure<<On Mon, 
3354+ 08/06 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<--Ne
3355+ 08/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  speeding up QUIT<<Just a followup to the QUIT di
3356+ 08/14 Johnny Eriksson    Re: speeding up QUIT<<> Just a followup to the Q
3357+ 08/14 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: speeding up QUIT<<Johnny Eriksson writes: > 
3358+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: speeding up QUIT<<> What, exactly, is it tha
3359+ 08/14 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: speeding up QUIT<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes: 
3360+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: speeding up QUIT<<> Only if so much of the r
3361+ 08/14 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: speeding up QUIT<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes: 
3362+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: speeding up QUIT<<> The big optimization in 
3363+ 08/15 Keith Moore        QUIT<<I don't know of any technical reason to wa
3364+ 08/15 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<(mailext removed, drums
3365+ 08/15 "Roger Fajman"     ABNF comments<<There are a few things about the 
3366+ 08/15 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 3:27 AM -0500 8/15/9
3367+ 08/15 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: QUIT<<> I don't know of any technical reason
3368+ 08/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: QUIT<<> Many MTA's will log a bitch notice i
3369+ 08/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: QUIT<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes: > > Many MTA
3370+ 08/17 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<The X.400 problem is ba
3371+ 08/18 John C Klensin     Re: QUIT<<On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:35:39 -0400 Kei
3372+ 08/18 Jacob Palme        An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<This issue w
3373+ 08/18 Jacob Palme        New IETF draft on "Messages between Email and Ne
3374+ 08/19 Anand Kumria       Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<On Mon, 
3375+ 08/19 Jacob Palme        Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3376+ 08/19 Jamie Zawinski     Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3377+ 08/19 Chris Newman       From the chair: personal attacks<<On Thu, 14 Aug
3378+ 08/19 Chris Newman       Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<On Mon, 
3379+ 08/19 Chris Newman       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, St
3380+ 08/19 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 1:54 PM -0500 8/19/9
3381+ 08/20 Jacob Palme        Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<At 11.45
3382+ 08/20 Jacob Palme        Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<At 14.21
3383+ 08/20 Jacob Palme        Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3384+ 08/19 Jamie Zawinski     Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3385+ 08/20 Paul Fox           Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<> > > > 
3386+ 08/20 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3387+ 08/20 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Mailing lists and Newsgroups (was: New IETF draf
3388+ 08/20 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Mailing lists and Newsgroups (was: New IETF draf
3389+ 08/20 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3390+ 08/20 Jacob Palme        Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3391+ 08/20 John Stanley       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3392+ 08/21 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<Sorry for the long dela
3393+ 08/22 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 7:00 PM -0500 8/21/9
3394+ 08/22 Philip Hazel       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, St
3395+ 08/22 "J. Robert von Be  Comments in Sender: (was Re: X-Sender, X-Archive
3396+ 08/22 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Comments in Sender: (was Re: X-Sender, X-Arc
3397+ 08/22 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 8:15 AM -0500 8/22/9
3398+ 08/22 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-01.txt<<-
3399+ 08/22 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-01.txt<<-
3402+ 08/23 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:
3403+ 08/23 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 11:13 AM -0500 8/23/
3404+ 08/23 Pete Resnick       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On 8/23/97 at 11:13 AM 
3405+ 08/23 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:
3406+ 08/25 "J. Robert von Be  Re: Comments in Sender: (was Re: X-Sender, X-Arc
3407+ 08/25 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 2:01 PM -0500 8/23/9
3409+ 08/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: ABNF comments<<RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman)
3410+ 08/25 John C Klensin     Re: Comments in Sender: (was Re: X-Sender, X-Arc
3411+ 08/25 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:
3412+ 08/25 Pete Resnick       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On 8/25/97 at 6:19 PM -
3413+ 08/25 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:
3414+ 08/25 Paul Fox           Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<> >I give an annual tal
3415+ 08/26 Philip Hazel       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On 25 Aug 1997, Paul Fo
3416+ 08/26 Philip Hazel       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Pe
3417+ 08/26 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:
3418+ 08/26 Philip Hazel       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Jo
3419+ 08/26 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:
3420+ 08/26 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 6:46 PM -0500 8/25/9
3421+ 08/26 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:
3422+ 08/26 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:
3423+ 08/26 Chris Newman       Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<On Wed, 
3424+ 08/26 Chris Newman       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3425+ 08/26 Chris Newman       ABNF checker<<This message is in MIME format. Th
3426+ 08/27 Jacob Palme        Re: An IANA registry of e-mail headers<<> Anand 
3427+ 08/27 Keith Moore        Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<> It doesn't deal with 
3428+ 08/27 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 9:11 AM -0500 8/27/9
3429+ 08/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3430+ 08/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Aug 27, 10:11am, Kei
3431+ 08/27 John C Klensin     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:
3432+ 08/27 Chris Newman       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Jo
3433+ 08/27 Keith Moore        Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 1
3434+ 08/27 Chris Newman       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3435+ 08/27 Steve Dorner       Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<At 3:49 PM -0500 8/27/9
3436+ 08/27 Paul Hoffman       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3437+ 08/28 Philip Hazel       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3438+ 08/29 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Ke
3439+ 08/29 Chris Newman       Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3440+ 08/29 Keith Moore        Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<> > As a first approxim
3441+ 08/29 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Ke
3442+ 08/29 Keith Moore        Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<> > Most people who car
3443+ 08/29 Keith Moore        Re: drums digest for Fri, 29 Aug 1997<<> > Havin
3444+ 08/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith
3445+ 08/31 Jacob Palme        Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<Proposed addit
3446+ 09/01 Karel.DE-VRIENDT@  Re: Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<> Proposed
3447+ 09/01 Jacob Palme        Re: Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<At 09.21 +
3448+ 09/01 Jacob Palme        Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email an
3449+ 09/01 Karel.DE-VRIENDT@  Re(2): Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<> At 09
3450+ 09/01 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<On Mon, 1 
3451+ 09/02 Chris Newman       Re: Do not recommend "quoted-string"<<On Sun, 31
3452+ 09/04 Jacob Palme        Text about X-headers<<Here is a suggestion for a
3453+ 09/04 John C Klensin     Re: Text about X-headers<<On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12
3454+ 09/04 Charles Lindsey    Re: Text about X-headers<<On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:
3455+ 09/04 "Brent B. Welch"   Re: Text about X-headers<<Just a general FYI, Do
3456+ 09/04 Jacob Palme        Re: Text about X-headers<<At 08.39 -0400 97-09-0
3457+ 09/04 Randall Gellens    Re: Text about X-headers<<At 8:39 AM -0400 9/4/9
3458+ 09/04 Chris Newman       Re: Text about X-headers<<On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Ja
3459+ 09/04 John C Klensin     Re: Text about X-headers<<On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 18
3460+ 09/04 Larry Campbell     Re: X-Sender, X-Archive<<On 8/25/97 10:59 PM Pau
3461+ 09/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Text about X-headers<<At 13.27 +0100 97-09-0
3462+ 09/05 Randall Gellens    Re: Text about X-headers<<At 3:00 PM +0100 9/5/9
3463+ 09/06 Jacob Palme        Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation to 
3464+ 09/07 Keith Moore        Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3465+ 09/07 Jacob Palme        Re: Need the quote and the author<<(This is a re
3466+ 09/08 John C Klensin     Re: Need the quote and the author<<On Sun, 07 Se
3467+ 09/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3468+ 09/08 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Text about X-headers<<-----Original Message-
3469+ 09/08 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3470+ 09/08 Chris Newman       Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3471+ 09/08 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3472+ 09/08 Keith Moore        Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3473+ 09/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3474+ 09/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: Text about X-headers<<jeffstep@microsoft.com
3475+ 09/08 Kevin Johnson      error in '3.6 Fields definition' in msg-fmt-02?<
3476+ 09/09 Pete Resnick       Re: error in '3.6 Fields definition' in msg-fmt-
3477+ 09/10 Robert Elz         Issues from the past few weeks<<I have been (mos
3478+ 09/09 Randall Gellens    Re: Text about X-headers<<At 11:53 PM +0200 9/8/
3479+ 09/10 Jacob Palme        Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3480+ 09/09 Jacob Palme        Re: Text about X-headers<<At 03.14 +0200 97-09-0
3481+ 09/10 Jacob Palme        Registry of dangerous headers<<At 03.59 +1000 97
3482+ 09/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: Text about X-headers<<Randy@Qualcomm.Com (Ra
3483+ 09/10 Jacob Palme        Re: Text about X-headers<<At 09.43 +0200 97-09-1
3484+ 09/10 Steve Dorner       Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<I'm one of t
3485+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3486+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Message-IDs and tracing<<[ omitting Message-ID ]
3487+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> Nor is it 
3488+ 09/11 Pete Resnick       Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3489+ 09/11 Johnny Eriksson    Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<In an unidentified 
3490+ 09/11 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<djb@koobera.math.ui
3491+ 09/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<At 11.56 +0200 97-0
3492+ 09/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<At 03.02 +0000 97-0
3493+ 09/11 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<At 03.45 +00
3494+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<> Actually, I was t
3495+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  other Message-ID applications<<> For example, lo
3496+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3497+ 09/11 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Message-IDs and tracing<<As we speak I am in
3498+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<> In other words, a
3499+ 09/11 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<djb@koobera.math.ui
3500+ 09/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<> > With a receipt,
3501+ 09/11 "Woodhouse, Grego  status of %-hack<<I apologize if this has alread
3502+ 09/11 "Woodhouse, Grego  FOR in trace headers<<I cannot find any indicati
3503+ 09/11 Dave Crocker       Re: status of %-hack<<At 07:50 PM 9/11/97 -0500,
3504+ 09/12 Dan Mosedale       Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<This is a multi-par
3505+ 09/12 Paul Fox           Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<> > [example of bac
3506+ 09/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<djb@koobera.math.ui
3507+ 09/12 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: status of %-hack<<Sounds good to me. === Gre
3508+ 09/12 Randall Gellens    Re: FOR in trace headers<<At 7:56 PM -0500 9/11/
3509+ 09/13 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: other Message-ID applications<<Dan Bernstein
3510+ 09/12 "John W. Noerenbe  DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<As your hu
3511+ 09/12 "John W. Noerenbe  DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<As your hu
3512+ 09/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<> </bo
3513+ 09/13 Alan Barrett       Re: DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<> The 
3514+ 09/13 Pete Resnick       Re: DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<On 9/1
3515+ 09/13 Jacob Palme        Re: other Message-ID applications<<At 17.00 +000
3516+ 09/16 Simon Lyall        Re: DRUMS minutes from 39th IETF meeting<<I am f
3517+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  postmaster semantics?<<RFC 822 says that the pos
3518+ 09/16 Philip Hazel       Re: postmaster semantics?<<On 16 Sep 1997, D. J.
3519+ 09/16 Tom Scola          Semantics of Folding white-space inside quoted-s
3520+ 09/16 Christian Kuhtz    Re: postmaster semantics?<<D. J. Bernstein is sa
3521+ 09/16 Ran Atkinson       Re: NULL recipient lists<<On Sep 13 7:35, D. J. 
3522+ 09/16 "Chuck Foster"     Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<On 11 Sep 97 at 16:
3523+ 09/16 WJCarpenter        Re: postmaster semantics?<<>> RFC 822 says that 
3524+ 09/17 Simon Lyall        Re: NULL recipient lists<<On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, R
3525+ 09/16 "Alain Zahm"       Re: postmaster semantics?<<At that time it was c
3526+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-IDs and tracing<<> How many user age
3527+ 09/16 Chris Newman       Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3528+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: NULL recipient lists<<> In the current world
3529+ 09/16 Chris Newman       Re: postmaster semantics?<<> RFC 822 says that t
3530+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: Wed, 1
3531+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: postmaster semantics?<<[ 821bis requiring po
3532+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: NULL recipient lists<<"D. J. Bernstein" writ
3533+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: postmaster semantics?<<Agreed, the existing 
3534+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: 11 Sep
3535+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: NULL recipient lists<<Date: 16 Sep 1997 17:0
3536+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: postmaster semantics?<<WJCarpenter writes: >
3537+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  the XPWD-PWD transition<<> Most FTP servers are 
3538+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: the XPWD-PWD transition<<Date: 16 Sep 1997 1
3539+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> Eg: for th
3540+ 09/16 Ran Atkinson       Re: NULL recipient lists<<On Sep 16 17:05, D. J.
3541+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  dropping ":;" messages<<(I typed ``To: drums: ;'
3542+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: dropping ":;" messages<<"D. J. Bernstein" wr
3543+ 09/16 Keith Moore        Re: postmaster semantics?<<WJCarpenter writes: >
3544+ 09/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: dropping ":;" messages<<> Well, you're wrong
3545+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: dropping ":;" messages<<"D. J. Bernstein" wr
3546+ 09/16 Pete Resnick       Re: dropping ":;" messages<<I would vehemently o
3547+ 09/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: dropping ":;" messages<<> There are, in fact
3548+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: dropping ":;" messages<<"D. J. Bernstein" wr
3549+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  I wonder if I should feel honored.<<I wonder if 
3550+ 09/16 Ofer Inbar         Re: dropping ":;" messages<<It seems this whole 
3551+ 09/16 Pete Resnick       Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3552+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: 16 Sep
3553+ 09/17 Paul Fox           Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> It is 100%
3554+ 09/17 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: Wed, 1
3555+ 09/17 Anand Kumria       Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<On Wed, 17 S
3556+ 09/17 Paul Fox           Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> | and if t
3557+ 09/18 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: Wed, 1
3558+ 09/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> what's in 
3559+ 09/17 Peter Sylvester    Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> But the co
3560+ 09/18 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: 17 Sep
3561+ 09/17 Keith Moore        Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> the issue 
3562+ 09/17 "Woodhouse, Grego  Reply-to (RE: Issues from the past few weeks)<<A
3563+ 09/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> Yes, those
3564+ 09/18 Philip Hazel       Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<On Wed, 17 S
3565+ 09/18 Peter Sylvester    Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<> > On Wed, 
3566+ 09/18 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: Thu, 1
3567+ 09/19 Paul Overell       Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3568+ 09/19 Paul Overell       Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3569+ 09/19 Paul Overell       Syntax of identifier in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
3570+ 09/19 Bill McQuillan     Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3571+ 09/19 Chris Newman       Re: Semantics of Folding white-space inside quot
3572+ 09/20 Ofer Inbar         Re: Reply-to (RE: Issues from the past few weeks
3573+ 09/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<kre@munnari.
3574+ 09/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<kre@munnari.
3575+ 09/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<moore@cs.utk
3576+ 09/22 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: 21 Sep
3577+ 09/22 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-to (RE: Issues from the past few weeks
3578+ 09/22 "Jeff Stephenson"  TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP addre
3579+ 09/16 Paul Fox           Re: postmaster semantics?<<> My (simple) (re)int
3580+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3581+ 09/22 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3582+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3583+ 09/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3584+ 09/22 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3585+ 09/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3586+ 09/22 Jamie Zawinski     Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few weeks
3587+ 09/23 Mark Delany        Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3588+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3589+ 09/22 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3590+ 09/22 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3591+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3592+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3593+ 09/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3594+ 09/16 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: postmaster semantics?<<"Alain Zahm" writes: 
3595+ 09/22 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3596+ 09/22 Randall Gellens    Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3597+ 09/22 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3598+ 09/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3599+ 09/23 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3600+ 09/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3601+ 09/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3602+ 09/23 Alan Barrett       Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3603+ 09/23 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3604+ 09/23 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3605+ 09/23 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3606+ 09/23 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3607+ 09/08 Ran Atkinson       Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3608+ 09/23 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3609+ 09/23 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3610+ 09/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3611+ 09/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3612+ 09/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3613+ 09/23 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3614+ 09/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3615+ 09/23 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3616+ 09/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3617+ 09/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: multidrop mode<<I agree that this problem ca
3618+ 09/23 Randall Gellens    Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3619+ 09/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3620+ 09/23 Chris Newman       Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3621+ 09/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3622+ 09/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3623+ 09/23 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3624+ 09/23 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3625+ 09/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3626+ 09/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  fetchmail = forwarding<<> POP and IMAP were neve
3627+ 09/23 Ran Atkinson       Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3628+ 09/23 Pete Resnick       Re: fetchmail = forwarding<<On 9/23/97 at 4:06 P
3629+ 09/23 Randall Gellens    Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3630+ 09/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: fetchmail = forwarding<<Dan Bernstein: > So 
3631+ 09/11 Pete Resnick       Required fields (Was: some non-applicable subjec
3632+ 09/23 "Roger Fajman"     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3633+ 09/24 Simon Lyall        Re: Syntax of identifier in draft-ietf-drums-msg
3634+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax of identifier in draft-ietf-drums-msg
3635+ 09/24 Jos Backus         Re: Incorrect use of the word SHOULD in relation
3636+ 09/24 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To<<Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:10:38 -0
3637+ 09/24 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3638+ 09/24 Paul Hethmon       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3639+ 09/24 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3640+ 09/24 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3641+ 09/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3642+ 09/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3643+ 09/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3644+ 09/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<I'm trying v
3645+ 09/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: postmaster semantics?<<perry@piermont.com (P
3646+ 09/24 "Woodhouse, Grego  an idea (Reply-to)<<I know that DRUMS cannot add
3647+ 09/24 John C Klensin     Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3648+ 09/25 Nick_Shelness@mot  Reply-to, etc.<<I had hoped to stay out of this 
3649+ 09/25 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Reply-to, etc.<<I personally agree with the 
3650+ 09/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<At 17.12 +10
3651+ 09/25 Jacob Palme        Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past few 
3652+ 09/25 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3653+ 09/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3654+ 09/26 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3655+ 09/26 Robert Elz         Re: Issues from the past few weeks<<Date: Thu, 2
3656+ 09/26 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3657+ 09/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3658+ 09/25 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3659+ 09/25 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3660+ 09/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3661+ 09/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: safe file systems<<lm@cobaltmicro.com (Larry
3662+ 09/26 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Folks, The Reply-to conundru
3663+ 09/26 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3664+ 09/26 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3665+ 09/26 Dave Crocker       Mailing lists (was Re: Reply-To)<<At 12:58 PM 9/
3666+ 09/26 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Mailing lists (was Re: Reply-To)<<On Fri, 26
3667+ 09/26 Dave Crocker       Re: Mailing lists (was Re: Reply-To)<<At 10:04 A
3668+ 09/26 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Mailing lists (was Re: Reply-To)<<On Fri, 26
3669+ 09/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3670+ 09/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3671+ 09/27 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-to, etc.<<This is a multi-part message
3672+ 09/27 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3673+ 09/25 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Nick_Shelness@motorcity2.lot
3674+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3675+ 09/27 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Those alternatives provide n
3676+ 09/27 John C Klensin     Re: Reply-to, etc.<<On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:43:07
3677+ 09/27 John C Klensin     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3678+ 09/27 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3679+ 09/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3680+ 09/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: fetchmail = forwarding<<The first copy of th
3681+ 09/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<> I think that Robert has ar
3682+ 09/27 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-to, etc.<<At 05:16 AM 9/27/97 -0700, J
3683+ 09/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3684+ 09/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3685+ 09/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3686+ 09/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-to, etc.<<At 05:40 PM 9/27/97 +0100, G
3687+ 09/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3688+ 09/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3689+ 09/27 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3690+ 09/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3691+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3692+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3693+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3694+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3695+ 09/27 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Jamie, Note, I'm addressing 
3696+ 09/27 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Dan, >> I think that Robert 
3697+ 09/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3698+ 09/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3699+ 09/28 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3700+ 09/25 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3701+ 09/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3702+ 09/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<> What constituted an "inacc
3703+ 09/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  ``primary recipients''<<> I could have sent the 
3704+ 09/27 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3705+ 09/27 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3706+ 09/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  reply-to text<<> o If the "Reply-To" field exist
3707+ 09/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3708+ 09/28 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-to, etc.<<Dan, >> What constituted an 
3709+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3710+ 09/28 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3711+ 09/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3712+ 09/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3713+ 09/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3714+ 09/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  replying to Bcc<<Resnick defends his text > If a
3715+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: replying to Bcc<<On 9/28/97 at 3:48 PM -0500
3716+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: replying to Bcc<<> you reveal yourself as a 
3717+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: replying to Bcc<<On 9/28/97 at 8:14 PM -0500
3718+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: replying to Bcc<<> Revealing information tha
3719+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: replying to Bcc<<On 9/28/97 at 9:50 PM -0500
3720+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: replying to Bcc<<> An MUA wants to automatic
3721+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: replying to Bcc<<On 9/28/97 at 11:05 PM -050
3722+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: replying to Bcc<<> Is there consensus In Apr
3723+ 09/29 "Alain Zahm"       Re: replying to Bcc<<Blind Copy recipients MUST 
3724+ 09/29 Pete Resnick       Re: replying to Bcc<<On 9/29/97 at 1:00 AM -0500
3725+ 09/29 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3726+ 09/29 Robert Elz         Re: replying to Bcc<<I have no problems with the
3727+ 09/29 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3728+ 09/29 Graham Klyne       Protocols and UIs (was Re: Reply-To, etc)<<I thi
3729+ 09/29 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3730+ 09/29 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3731+ 09/29 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3732+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: replying to Bcc<<> Blind Copy recipients MUS
3733+ 09/29 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: replying to Bcc<<It didn't say that replies 
3734+ 09/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: safe file systems<<kaih@khms.westfalen.de (K
3735+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  consensus in April<<> > Several of us agreed tha
3736+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Bcc semantics<<> In this instance, I'd prefer to
3737+ 09/29 Pete Resnick       Re: consensus in April<<On 9/29/97 at 2:32 PM -0
3738+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  RE: replying to Bcc<<> "If recipients are listed
3739+ 09/29 Paul Fox           Re: Bcc semantics<<> > I'm curious about the his
3740+ 09/29 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: replying to Bcc<<I think you have some good 
3741+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: consensus in April<<> > * there were no obje
3742+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  RE: replying to Bcc<<> I don't see that it is ne
3743+ 09/29 Pete Resnick       Re: consensus in April<<(*Sigh*) Wasting more ti
3744+ 09/29 Pete Resnick       RE: replying to Bcc<<On 9/29/97 at 6:06 PM -0500
3745+ 09/29 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: replying to Bcc<<Right. My point was that a 
3746+ 09/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: consensus in April<<> Which part of "NOT" an
3747+ 09/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  RE: replying to Bcc<<> For example, in 1123: RFC
3748+ 09/29 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3749+ 09/29 Jamie Zawinski     forwarding (was Re: Reply-To)<<Roger Fajman wrot
3750+ 09/30 "Roger Fajman"     Re: forwarding (was Re: Reply-To)<<> > One case 
3751+ 09/30 "Roger Fajman"     Re: forwarding (was Re: Reply-To)<<> I also susp
3752+ 09/29 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: replying to Bcc<<On Sep 29, 3:08am, Pete Res
3753+ 09/30 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Bcc semantics<<Paul Fox writes:- > it happen
3754+ 09/30 Robert Elz         Re: Bcc semantics<<Date: 29 Sep 1997 20:15:02 -0
3755+ 09/30 Peter Sylvester    RE: replying to Bcc<<I realize this is a bit tho
3756+ 09/30 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-04.txt<<--NextP
3757+ 09/30 Peter Sylvester    Re: forwarding (was Re: Reply-To)<<> > > > One c
3758+ 10/01 Robert Elz         Re: forwarding (was Re: Reply-To)<<Date: Tue, 30
3759+ 09/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3760+ 09/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3761+ 10/01 Robert Elz         abnf-04<<This sentence was probably in an earlie
3762+ 09/30 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3763+ 09/30 Mike Byrns         RE: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3764+ 09/30 Paul Hethmon       Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3765+ 09/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3766+ 09/30 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-to, etc.<<dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Da
3767+ 09/30 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3768+ 09/30 Dave Crocker       RE: replying to Bcc<<At 06:32 PM 9/29/97 -0500, 
3769+ 09/30 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3770+ 09/30 Randall Gellens    Re: TURN and disconnected SMTP with dynamic IP a
3771+ 10/01 Graham Klyne       Re: replying to Bcc<<At 03:08 AM 9/29/97 -0500, 
3772+ 10/01 Dave Crocker       Re: replying to Bcc<<At 01:37 PM 10/1/97 +0100, 
3773+ 10/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3774+ 10/01 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To problem (Was: Issues from the past 
3775+ 10/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  wishful thinking vs. reality<<> the test is the 
3776+ 10/02 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<True. Still, t
3777+ 10/02 Dave Crocker       Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<>Yes or no: Ar
3778+ 10/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> My note ackn
3779+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> >Yes or no: 
3780+ 10/02 Dave Crocker       Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<At 12:01 AM 10
3781+ 10/03 "Roger Fajman"     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> replying to 
3782+ 10/03 Keith Moore        Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> >I prefer to
3783+ 10/03 Peter Sylvester    RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Claiming that 
3784+ 10/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<dcrocker@brand
3785+ 10/03 Maurizio Codogno   Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Kai Henningsen
3786+ 10/03 John Beck          Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<keith> I prefe
3787+ 10/03 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<When you get r
3788+ 10/03 Keith Moore        "Reply-to as a replacement for From" considered 
3789+ 10/03 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Maurizio: > Bu
3790+ 10/03 Steve Dorner       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3791+ 10/03 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<I like this la
3792+ 10/03 Jamie Zawinski     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Woodhouse, Gre
3793+ 10/04 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: Thu, 02 
3794+ 10/04 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Robert Elz <kr
3795+ 10/04 Maurizio Codogno   RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Gregory: % I l
3796+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: Sat, 4 O
3797+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> > why is the
3798+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Here's my prop
3799+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: 5 Oct 19
3800+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: 5 Oct 19
3801+ 10/04 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<D. J. Bernstei
3802+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> That won't d
3803+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> changes the 
3804+ 10/04 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<D. J. Bernstei
3805+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> I think Dave
3806+ 10/05 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: Sat, 4 O
3807+ 10/05 Dave Crocker       Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<--============
3808+ 10/04 Dave Crocker       Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Folks, The mes
3809+ 10/05 Graham Klyne       Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<At 01:35 AM 10
3810+ 10/05 Graham Klyne       RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<At 03:19 PM 10
3811+ 10/05 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3812+ 10/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> RFC822 speci
3813+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3814+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: Sun, 05 
3815+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> o If the "Re
3816+ 10/05 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> > o User age
3817+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> | I think Da
3818+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: 'Reply-to as a replacement for From' conside
3819+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     RE: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> Does this su
3820+ 10/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> > > o User a
3821+ 10/06 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: 5 Oct 19
3822+ 10/06 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3823+ 10/06 Steve Dorner       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3824+ 10/06 Keith Moore        elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<<> H
3825+ 10/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  simple reply targets<<This thread is about my la
3826+ 10/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3827+ 10/06 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: simple reply targets<<--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Con
3828+ 10/06 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3829+ 10/06 Keith Moore        Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3830+ 10/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3831+ 10/06 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: simple reply targets<<On Oct 6, 7:19pm, D. J
3832+ 10/06 Jamie Zawinski     Re: simple reply targets<<Bart Schaefer wrote: >
3833+ 10/06 "Bart Schaefer"    References definition<<On Oct 6, 7:47pm, Jamie Z
3834+ 10/07 Simon Lyall        Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3835+ 10/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: References definition<<> At the risk of kick
3836+ 10/07 Jamie Zawinski     the Posted-To header<<Since discussion has died 
3837+ 10/07 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-to, etc.<<At 12.29 -0400 97-09-27, Joh
3838+ 10/08 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: References definition<<Bart Schaefer <schaef
3839+ 10/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: References definition<<On Oct 8, 10:48am, Cl
3840+ 10/09 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3841+ 09/28 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few w
3842+ 10/09 Graham Klyne       Re: replying to Bcc<<At 03:44 PM 10/1/97 -0700, 
3843+ 10/09 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3844+ 10/09 Philip Hazel       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3845+ 10/09 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3846+ 10/09 Philip Hazel       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3847+ 10/09 The IESG           Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specificatio
3848+ 10/10 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3849+ 10/10 Robert Elz         Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3850+ 10/09 Bill McQuillan     Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3851+ 10/10 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3852+ 10/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3853+ 10/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3854+ 10/12 Christian Kuhtz    Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3855+ 10/07 Simon Lyall        Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3856+ 10/15 djb@cr.yp.to       Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3857+ 10/15 Robert Elz         Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3858+ 10/15 Dave Crocker       Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3859+ 10/15 Jamie Zawinski     identification of mail and news messages<<Is the
3860+ 10/16 Simon Lyall        Re: identification of mail and news messages<<On
3861+ 10/15 Pyda Srisuresh     Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3862+ 10/15 Chris Newman       Moving forward with Reply-To (from the chair)<<A
3863+ 10/15 Chris Newman       Reply-To straw poll<<As an experiment, I'd like 
3864+ 10/15 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To straw poll<<Chris Newman <Chris.New
3865+ 10/15 Jamie Zawinski     Re: identification of mail and news messages<<Si
3866+ 10/16 Robert Elz         Re: Last Call: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specific
3867+ 10/17 DRUMS WG Chair     Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<I intend
3869+ 10/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<> If
3870+ 10/18 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<> He
3871+ 10/19 Jacob Palme        Re: elaborating on Dan's "simple reply" concept<
3872+ 10/20 Dave Crocker / IM  abnf<<A few days ago, I posted yet-another updat
3873+ 10/10 Maurizio Codogno   Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3874+ 10/20 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<On O
3875+ 10/20 DRUMS WG Chair     Straw Poll results<<Here are the results of the 
3876+ 10/20 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<On M
3877+ 10/20 Chris Newman       Reply-To pro/con<<As I'm agnostic on what reply-
3878+ 10/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To pro/con<<Chris Newman <Chris.Newman
3879+ 10/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Straw Poll results<<DRUMS WG Chair <Chris.Ne
3880+ 10/20 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3881+ 10/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To Straw Poll and Moving forward<<DRUM
3882+ 10/20 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Reply-To pro/con<<I'm interested in hearing 
3883+ 10/20 Jacob Palme        Re: identification of mail and news messages<<At
3884+ 10/20 Jacob Palme        Re: identification of mail and news messages<<At
3885+ 10/21 Robert Elz         Re: abnf<<Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:01:10 +0200 
3886+ 10/21 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To pro/con<<At 18:33 20/10/97 -0400, E
3887+ 10/21 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3888+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To pro/con<<Graham Klyne <GK@ACM.ORG>:
3889+ 10/21 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-05.txt<<--NextP
3890+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Please refer
3891+ 10/21 Maurizio Codogno   Comment on PR#1<<Eric: % Mail user agents typica
3892+ 10/21 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3893+ 10/21 Chris Newman       RE: Reply-To pro/con<<On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Woodh
3894+ 10/21 Paul Fox           Re: Comment on PR#1<<> % > % o If the "Reply-To"
3895+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Comment on PR#1<<Paul Fox <pgf@foxharp.bosto
3896+ 10/21 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To pro/con<<Chris Newman wrote: > > Ac
3897+ 10/21 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Reply-To pro/con<<The issue here is not whet
3898+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To pro/con<<Jamie Zawinski <jwz@netsca
3899+ 10/21 Bill McQuillan     ABNF-05<<I think that this draft addresses my pr
3900+ 10/21 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3901+ 10/21 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-To pro/con<<Woodhouse, Gregory J. wrot
3902+ 10/21 Keith Moore        "Reply-To replaces only From" is NOT RFC 822 int
3903+ 10/21 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Here are
3904+ 10/21 Chris Newman       Re: "Reply-To replaces only From" is NOT RFC 822
3905+ 10/21 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Chris Ne
3906+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Chris Ne
3907+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  meta-comment on the Reply-To debate.<<I want to 
3908+ 10/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Reply-Personal proposal version #2<<Please refer
3909+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> o If t
3910+ 10/21 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-Personal proposal version #2<<A couple
3911+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<D. J. Be
3912+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  wishful thinking vs. reality<<Please don't send 
3913+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<D. J. Bernstei
3914+ 10/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<On Oct 22, 5:3
3915+ 10/22 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3916+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> How do you s
3917+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> If the "rule
3918+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<D. J. Bernstei
3919+ 10/23 Robert Elz         Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Date: 22 Oct 1
3920+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Robert Elz <kr
3921+ 10/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<On Oct 22, 11:
3922+ 10/22 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<-----Original 
3923+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> So, instead 
3924+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> If there eve
3925+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> Also note th
3926+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Reply-Personal Proposal, version #3<<Please refe
3927+ 10/22 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3928+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  wishful thinking vs. reality<<> With the list of
3929+ 10/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3930+ 10/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-Personal proposal version #2<<esr@snar
3931+ 10/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3932+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> Every 
3933+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3934+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> This p
3935+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> > o If
3936+ 10/22 Keith Moore        interpretation of proposal #1<<> Let's look agai
3937+ 10/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> But we
3938+ 10/22 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version #3<<> A. Co
3939+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3940+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3941+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Keith Mo
3942+ 10/22 Jamie Zawinski     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3943+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<(I someh
3944+ 10/22 DRUMS WG Chair     DRUMS Mailing list etiquette<<Here are some basi
3945+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in MUAs
3946+ 10/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in MUAs
3947+ 10/22 Bill McQuillan     Re: Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in 
3948+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in 
3949+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3950+ 10/23 Jacob Palme        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3951+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Keith Mo
3952+ 10/22 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Keith Mo
3953+ 10/22 Paul Fox           Re: Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in 
3954+ 10/22 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3955+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Summary of existing practice on Reply-To in 
3956+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  MUA practice on Reply-To, take 3<<Here is what I
3957+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice on Reply-To, take 3<<Eric S. Ra
3958+ 10/23 "Roger Fajman"     Reply-to deployment scenarios<<It seems to me th
3959+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  <<Added dtmail and corrected an error. A = Defau
3960+ 10/23 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3961+ 10/23 Graham Klyne       Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3962+ 10/24 Robert Elz         Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3963+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  MUA practice summary rides again<<Made Column B 
3964+ 10/23 Jacob Palme        Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-To"<<
3965+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3966+ 10/24 Robert Elz         Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3967+ 10/23 Bill McQuillan     Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<MsExchange
3968+ 10/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3969+ 10/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<djb@cr.yp.to (
3970+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3971+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3972+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> Above, you j
3973+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> BSDmail 
3974+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<D. J. Bern
3975+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Why we need more UI flexibility<<Dan writes: > >
3976+ 10/23 Jacob Palme        What differences are allowed with the same Messa
3977+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
3978+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> (I som
3979+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> > If w
3980+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3981+ 10/23 Kai Henningsen     Group syntax<<Well, I just asked how current sof
3982+ 10/23 Keith Moore        reply-to munging by lists is not just about elim
3983+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Group syntax<<> > Resent-cc: recipient list 
3984+ 10/23 Keith Moore        REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<I've seen a numbe
3985+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> The last
3986+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<Keith Mo
3987+ 10/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<D. J. Bern
3988+ 10/23 Chris Newman       Proposed amendment to DRUMS charter<<I propose w
3989+ 10/23 Jamie Zawinski     Re: reply-to munging by lists is not just about 
3990+ 10/23 Paul Fox           Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> We can s
3991+ 10/23 Paul Fox           Re: reply-to munging by lists is not just about 
3992+ 10/23 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-Personal Proposal, version 1<<> > And 
3993+ 10/23 Jacob Palme        Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
3994+ 10/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding 'Reply-T
3995+ 10/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Why we need more UI flexibility<<> Here's th
3996+ 10/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: reply-to munging by lists is not just about 
3997+ 10/24 Keith Moore        Re: reply-to munging by lists is not just about 
3998+ 10/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<Added 
3999+ 10/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Proposed amendment to DRUMS charter<<Chris.N
4000+ 10/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Phasing out of mailing lists adding "Reply-T
4001+ 10/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<moore@cs.utk.
4003+ 10/24 Graham Klyne       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 18:43 23/1
4004+ 10/24 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> Ok, but see
4005+ 10/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<djb@cr.yp.to (
4006+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Reply-To in other systems<<I did a bit of resear
4007+ 10/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: reply-to munging by lists is not just about 
4008+ 10/24 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-To in other systems<<Chris, > VMS mail
4009+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<I like your p
4010+ 10/24 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To in other systems<<On Fri, 24 Oct 19
4011+ 10/23 Maurizio Codogno   Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<First of all: 
4012+ 10/24 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Reply-To in other systems<<My experiments wi
4013+ 10/24 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Reply-To in other systems<<Hmm...I may have 
4014+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<[original rep
4015+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<Maurizio Codog
4016+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith Moore <
4017+ 10/26 Robert Elz         Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Date: Sat, 25
4018+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Your problem 
4019+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<> 
4020+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> These indic
4021+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Isolating one big problem.<<I think Keith is owe
4022+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<Ro
4023+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> (14) Mailin
4024+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Robert Elz <k
4025+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<A meta-note a
4026+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<> 
4027+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: Isolating one big problem.<<> I think Keith 
4028+ 10/25 Pete Resnick       Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<On
4029+ 10/25 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<It
4030+ 10/25 Jamie Zawinski     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith Moore w
4031+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<Ke
4032+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> I think thi
4033+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: MUA practice summary meets Billy The Kid<<> 
4034+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> I have expl
4035+ 10/25 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> > (15) Mail
4036+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Roger Fajman 
4037+ 10/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<I was having 
4038+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<The point of 
4039+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> SV mailx
4040+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Bart Schaefer
4041+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> What munging
4042+ 10/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<D. J. Bern
4043+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<Eric, stop
4044+ 10/25 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> Roger Fajma
4045+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<D. J. Bern
4046+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> If you c
4047+ 10/26 Robert Elz         Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Date: Sat, 25
4049+ 10/26 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Reply-To in other systems<<Chris, I wrote th
4050+ 10/26 Robert Elz         Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<Date: 26 O
4051+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Roger Fajman 
4052+ 10/26 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<On Oct 25,
4053+ 10/27 Robert Elz         Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<Date: Sun,
4054+ 10/26 Paul Fox           Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<Robert Elz
4055+ 10/25 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Robert Elz <k
4056+ 10/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<> Other no
4057+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Robert Elz <k
4058+ 10/26 Jacob Palme        Can different messages have the same Message-ID<
4059+ 10/26 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> > And if yo
4060+ 10/26 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4061+ 10/26 Harald.T.Alvestra  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<One interesti
4062+ 10/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<kre@munnari.O
4063+ 10/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: wishful thinking vs. reality<<> "Reply-To Mu
4064+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith Moore <
4065+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4066+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4067+ 10/26 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> I am not ye
4068+ 10/26 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4069+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Attack of the Giant MUA Practice Summary<<Info o
4070+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> Roger Fajma
4071+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> Sorry, I do
4072+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> What I'm en
4073+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4074+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Attack of the Giant MUA Practice Summary<<Info o
4075+ 10/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4076+ 10/27 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> I am not ye
4077+ 10/27 Robert Elz         Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Date: Sat, 25
4078+ 10/27 Robert Elz         Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Date: 26 Oct 
4079+ 10/27 Graham Klyne       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4080+ 10/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Roger Fajman 
4081+ 10/27 "Alain Zahm"       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4082+ 10/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith Moore <
4083+ 10/27 Paul Fox           Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4084+ 10/27 Graham Klyne       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4085+ 10/27 Ran Atkinson       Re: MUA practice summary rides again<<The MMDF u
4086+ 10/27 Keith Moore        different messages with the same message-id<<Som
4087+ 10/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4088+ 10/27 Keith Moore        responses about "does your mailer have reply-to 
4089+ 10/27 Keith Moore        Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4090+ 10/27 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> > I agree w
4091+ 10/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<On Oct 27, 4:
4092+ 10/27 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> > 1. [3.6.2
4093+ 10/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<On Oct 27, 6:
4094+ 10/28 Jacob Palme        Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4095+ 10/27 Paul Fox           Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> > > The use
4096+ 10/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<kre@munnari.O
4097+ 10/28 Kai Henningsen     Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4098+ 10/27 Chris Newman       Re: Isolating one big problem.<<On Sat, 25 Oct 1
4099+ 10/28 "Alain Zahm"       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4100+ 10/28 Chris Newman       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4101+ 10/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4102+ 10/28 Graham Klyne       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4103+ 10/28 Graham Klyne       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 18:44 27/1
4104+ 10/28 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> >> > 2. [3.
4105+ 10/29 Robert Elz         Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4106+ 10/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4107+ 10/26 Jacob Palme        "Reply-To-All" definition<<At 15.32 +0200 97-10-
4108+ 10/26 Kai Henningsen     Re: Isolating one big problem.<<esr@snark.thyrsu
4109+ 10/29 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Isolating one big problem.<<> (1) It is not 
4110+ 10/29 "Alain Zahm"       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4111+ 10/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: "Reply-to as a replacement for From" conside
4112+ 10/29 Jacob Palme        Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4113+ 10/28 Maurizio Codogno   Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<(sorry for al
4114+ 10/31 Robert Elz         Reply-To Proposal (Type 1) available<<Apologies 
4115+ 10/31 Maurizio Codogno   Re: failed mail to DRUMS list<<[as per Keith's m
4116+ 10/30 Jacob Palme        Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4117+ 10/31 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-kre-reply-to-00.txt<
4118+ 10/31 Graham Klyne       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 10:07 30/1
4119+ 10/31 Graham Klyne       Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4120+ 10/31 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> To me, the 
4121+ 10/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4122+ 10/31 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To Proposal (Type 1) available<<Robert
4123+ 10/31 Graham Klyne       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 10:28 31/1
4124+ 10/31 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> >Something 
4125+ 11/01 Jacob Palme        Re: Can different messages have the same Message
4126+ 10/31 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> My own poin
4127+ 10/31 "Roger Fajman"     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> This debate
4128+ 11/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<RAF@CU.NIH.GO
4129+ 11/02 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To Proposal (Type 1) available<<Date: 
4130+ 11/03 Maurizio Codogno   replies, replies...<<% From: Keith Moore <moore@
4131+ 11/04 Robert Elz         Re: replies, replies...<<Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 1
4132+ 11/03 Keith Moore        Re: replies, replies...<<> % The real difference
4133+ 11/04 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To Proposal (Type 1) available<<At 23:
4134+ 11/04 Graham Klyne       Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 16:11 31/1
4135+ 11/04 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> I still hav
4136+ 11/04 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To Proposal (Type 1) available<<Date: 
4137+ 11/04 Jamie Zawinski     egregious References lossage<<I just happened ac
4138+ 11/04 Graham Klyne       Reply-to (1) wording?<<As I happen to be designi
4139+ 11/05 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<Date: Tue, 04 Nov 199
4140+ 11/04 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<On 11/4/97 at 5:15 PM
4141+ 11/05 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<> (snip) None of the 
4142+ 11/03 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: replies, replies...<<On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Mau
4143+ 11/06 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997
4144+ 11/05 Gordon B. Jones    Message Tracking MIB and BOF<<Greetings, Three c
4145+ 11/05 Chris Newman       Proposed charter update<<Here's a proposed chart
4146+ 11/06 Paul Overell       SMTP session initiation and 554<<In draft-ietf-d
4147+ 11/06 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<At 06:17 06/11/97 +11
4148+ 11/06 Graham Klyne       Re: Proposed charter update<<At 15:57 05/11/97 -
4149+ 11/06 Chris Newman       Re: Proposed charter update<<On Thu, 6 Nov 1997,
4150+ 11/06 Chris Newman       Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<I've been trying to c
4151+ 11/06 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<I think this is a
4152+ 11/06 Paul Fox           Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<> I think this is
4153+ 11/07 Keith Moore        Re: Reply-to (1) wording?<<> If the essense of t
4154+ 11/07 Maurizio Codogno   Re: replies, replies...<<Robert: % | Now I see y
4155+ 11/07 Paul Overell       RCPT TO:<Postmaster><<In draft-ietf-drums-smtpup
4156+ 11/07 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<At 17.18 -0800 97
4157+ 11/07 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<On Fri, 7 Nov 199
4158+ 11/07 Chris Newman       No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/References
4159+ 11/08 Robert Elz         Re: replies, replies...<<Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 1
4160+ 11/08 Jacob Palme        Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4161+ 11/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4162+ 11/08 Kai Henningsen     Re: RCPT TO:<Postmaster><<paulo@turnpike.com (Pa
4163+ 11/08 Maurizio Codogno   Re: replies, replies...<<% From: Robert Elz <kre
4164+ 11/08 Johnny Eriksson    Re: replies, replies...<<Maurizio Codogno <mau@b
4165+ 11/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4166+ 11/08 Jamie Zawinski     Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4167+ 11/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<[ with Reply-To-A
4168+ 11/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4169+ 11/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RCPT TO:<Postmaster><<Many firewalls have SM
4170+ 11/09 Robert Elz         Re: replies, replies...<<Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 1
4171+ 11/09 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<At 17:18 06/11/97
4172+ 11/10 Philip Hazel       Re: RCPT TO:<Postmaster><<On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Pa
4173+ 11/10 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To-Meaning proposal<<At 16:35 07/11/97
4174+ 11/11 Chris Newman       Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4175+ 11/11 Randall Gellens    Re: RCPT TO:<Postmaster><<At 10:35 AM +0200 11/8
4176+ 11/12 Robert Elz         Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4177+ 11/11 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4178+ 11/11 John Beck          Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4179+ 11/11 Jamie Zawinski     Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4180+ 11/12 Charles Lindsey    Re: CFWS limits..<<In local.usenet Chris Newman 
4181+ 11/12 John Beck          Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4182+ 11/12 Chris Newman       Re: CFWS limits..<<On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Charles 
4183+ 11/13 Robert Elz         Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4184+ 11/12 Chris Newman       Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4185+ 11/12 The IESG           Protocol Action: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specif
4186+ 11/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Proposed charter update<<I sent an objection
4187+ 11/12 Maurizio Codogno   Re: replies, replies...<<Bart: % I support limit
4188+ 11/13 Robert Elz         Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4189+ 11/12 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: No comments in Message-ID/In-Reply-To/Refere
4190+ 11/13 Chris Newman       Re: Proposed charter update<<On Thu, 13 Nov 1997
4191+ 11/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Proposed charter update<<(Please don't send 
4192+ 11/12 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith Moore <
4193+ 11/14 Robert Elz         Re: Proposed charter update<<Date: 13 Nov 1997 1
4194+ 11/14 Robert Elz         Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Date: Wed, 12
4195+ 11/14 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<> Keith Moore
4196+ 11/12 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Maurizio Codo
4197+ 11/14 Keith Moore        Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Maurizio Codo
4198+ 11/15 Jacob Palme        Questionnaire about the future of e-mail<<At the
4199+ 11/16 Jacob Palme        Deprecating In-Reply-To???<<At 12.24 -0800 97-11
4200+ 11/17 Jacob Palme        Work on "Mail-Followup-To" in news.software.read
4201+ 11/17 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To???<<Jacob Palme wrot
4202+ 11/17 Robert Elz         Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4203+ 11/17 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4204+ 11/17 Robert Elz         Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4205+ 11/17 Maurizio Codogno   Re: CFWS limits..<<% From: Chris Newman <Chris.N
4206+ 11/17 Jacob Palme        Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To???<<At 01.57 -0800 9
4207+ 11/17 Maurizio Codogno   Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<Keith: % Now,
4208+ 11/17 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To???<<Jacob Palme wrot
4209+ 11/18 Jacob Palme        Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To???<<At 11.54 -0800 9
4210+ 11/18 Chris Newman       Re: Work on "Mail-Followup-To" in news.software.
4211+ 11/21 Jacob Palme        IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<<I h
4212+ 11/21 Jacob Palme        Changes in messages and changes in Message-ID<<I
4213+ 11/21 Pete Resnick       New message format draft<<Hi all, I've already s
4214+ 11/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Proposed draft RFC on the Reply-To header<<Netwo
4215+ 11/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Proposed draft RFC on the Reply-To header<<I
4216+ 11/21 "Eric S. Raymond"  Mail-Followup-To development of note.<<Today, th
4217+ 11/21 Pete Resnick       Re: Mail-Followup-To development of note.<<On 11
4218+ 11/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4219+ 11/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Changes in messages and changes in Message-I
4220+ 11/22 Jacob Palme        Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4221+ 11/22 Jacob Palme        Re: Changes in messages and changes in Message-I
4222+ 11/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4223+ 11/24 Jacob Palme        Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4224+ 11/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4225+ 11/24 Jacob Palme        Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4226+ 11/24 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4227+ 11/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4228+ 11/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4229+ 11/25 Philip Hazel       Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4230+ 11/25 Graham Klyne       Some thoughts on the "Reply-to" issue<<I was thi
4231+ 11/25 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-02.txt<<-
4232+ 11/25 "Jack De Winter"   Re: REPLY problem list (draft #1)<<At 05:19 PM 1
4233+ 11/25 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4234+ 11/25 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4235+ 11/25 Maurizio Codogno   RE: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4236+ 11/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4237+ 11/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4238+ 11/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Deprecating In-Reply-To and Q'aire about fut
4239+ 11/26 Jacob Palme        Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4240+ 11/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: IETF draft on the "Mail-Followup-To" header<
4241+ 12/03 "Eric S. Raymond"  Y2K problem in 822 date/time specification<<Havi
4242+ 12/02 Pete Resnick       Re: Y2K problem in 822 date/time specification<<
4243+ 12/03 "Erik E. Fair"     Re: Y2K problem in 822 date/time specification<<
4244+ 12/03 Philip Hazel       Format of Received:<<The draft says 4.4 Trace in
4245+ 12/03 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-03.txt<<--Ne
4246+ 12/03 Chris Newman       Proposed Agenda<<Here's a proposed agenda, sorry
4247+ 12/03 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Proposed Agenda<<Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@
4248+ 12/03 Keith Moore        Re: Proposed Agenda<<Regarding the debate about 
4249+ 12/03 Keith Moore        location of reply problem list<<I've collected t
4250+ 12/04 Jacob Palme        Re: Proposed Agenda<<Suggested addition to Keith
4251+ 12/04 Paul Overell       Comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-03.txt<<Con
4252+ 12/04 Keith Moore        Re: Proposed Agenda<<> Sender of a message is no
4253+ 12/04 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-message-id-00.txt<<-
4254+ 12/04 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-replyto-meaning-00.t
4255+ 12/04 "Eric S. Raymond"  Problem list status of Reply-To-Personal/Mail-Fo
4256+ 12/04 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-03.txt<
4257+ 12/04 Paul Overell       Re: Comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-03.txt<
4258+ 12/04 Paul Hoffman / IM  Bulk Unsolicited Mail BOF (spam)<<Unsolicited Bu
4260+ 12/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Proposed Agenda<<At 09.37 -0500 97-12-04, Ke
4261+ 12/04 Keith Moore        Re: Proposed Agenda<<> At 09.37 -0500 97-12-04, 
4262+ 12/05 Chris Newman       Re: Problem list status of Reply-To-Personal/Mai
4263+ 12/05 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.
4264+ 12/05 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-replyto-personal-00.
4265+ 12/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Proposed Agenda<<At 22.04 -0500 97-12-04, Ke
4266+ 12/05 Keith Moore        Re: Proposed Agenda<<> > This is getting very fr
4267+ 12/06 Graham Klyne       Re: Proposed Agenda<<At 22:04 04/12/97 -0500, Ke
4268+ 12/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Proposed Agenda<<At 15.53 -0500 97-12-05, Ke
4269+ 12/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  List-* replies considered harmful<<> If we want 
4270+ 12/05 Chris Newman       DRUMS agenda<<Directed Revision and Update of Me
4271+ 12/06 Keith Moore        Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<> > If we
4272+ 12/08 "Roger Fajman"     Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<> I don't
4273+ 12/08 Keith Moore        Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<> It isn'
4274+ 12/08 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<D. J. Ber
4275+ 12/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<> It shou
4276+ 12/09 Harald.T.Alvestra  Blank lines in ABNF specs?<<Another problem I fo
4277+ 12/09 Harald.T.Alvestra  An ABNF syntax checker<<------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0 Co
4278+ 12/10 Jacob Palme        Re: List-* replies considered harmful<<At 09.59 
4279+ 12/11 Jacob Palme        New solution to the Reply-To issue<<I believe I 
4280+ 12/11 Jacob Palme        Message-ID text<<I am writing this message durin
4281+ 12/11 Jacob Palme        A paper about the future of e-mail<<I have writt
4282+ 12/11 Robert Elz         Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<Date: Th
4283+ 12/12 Jacob Palme        Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<At 08.50
4284+ 12/12 Jacob Palme        User interface for "reply" command<<Even though 
4285+ 12/12 Jacob Palme        Issues on a header registry<<Since we did not ha
4286+ 12/12 Jacob Palme        Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field<<Si
4287+ 12/12 Jacob Palme        How to find a solution<<Chris Newman tried very 
4288+ 12/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<> "Follo
4289+ 12/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<> Soluti
4290+ 12/12 "Roger Fajman"     Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<> 3. New
4291+ 12/12 "Roger Fajman"     Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<> Even t
4292+ 12/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4293+ 12/12 "Roger Fajman"     Reply-All Proposal with Possible User Interface<
4294+ 12/13 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Reply-All Proposal with Possible User Interf
4295+ 12/13 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<Jacob Pa
4296+ 12/12 Robert Elz         Re: User interface for "reply" command<<Date: Fr
4297+ 12/12 Robert Elz         Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<Date: Fr
4298+ 12/12 Robert Elz         Re: How to find a solution<<Date: Fri, 12 Dec 19
4299+ 12/14 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID text<<At 11:52 11/12/97 +0100, Ja
4300+ 12/14 "Roger Fajman"     Re: New solution to the Reply-To issue<<> Could 
4301+ 12/15 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: User interface for "reply" command<<Jacob Pa
4302+ 12/15 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@
4303+ 12/15 "Matthew Wall"     Out of band data on REPLY-TO requirements<<As pa
4304+ 12/18 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> > Alternative Majo
4305+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore writes: 
4306+ 12/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> > > Keep only "Rep
4307+ 12/18 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> > These mailers ar
4308+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How to find a solution<<Please don't send me
4309+ 12/19 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<[if Dan had specifie
4310+ 12/19 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> Please don't send 
4311+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How to find a solution<<> Part of the proble
4312+ 12/19 Pete Resnick       Re: How to find a solution<<On 12/19/97 at 12:34
4313+ 12/19 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> On 12/19/97 at 12:
4314+ 12/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<Keith Moore writ
4315+ 12/19 Pete Resnick       Re: How to find a solution<<On 12/19/97 at 2:52 
4316+ 12/19 "Matthew Wall"     Re: How to find a solution<<--On Fri, Dec 19, 19
4317+ 12/19 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore <moore@c
4318+ 12/20 Graham Klyne       Re: How to find a solution<<At 22:52 18/12/97 ES
4319+ 12/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Graham Klyne <GK@ACM
4320+ 12/21 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4322+ 12/21 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID text<<At 17.49 +0000 97-12-14, Gr
4323+ 12/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4324+ 12/22 John C Klensin     Re: How to find a solution<<On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 
4325+ 12/22 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID text<<At 13:21 21/12/97 +0100, Ja
4326+ 12/22 Jutta Degener      DRUMS: Minutes of Dec '97 meeting at IETF-40 in 
4327+ 12/22 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> > > > Keep only "R
4328+ 12/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore <moore@c
4329+ 12/23 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> Keith Moore <moore
4330+ 12/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore <moore@c
4331+ 12/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: How to find a solution<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Ke
4332+ 12/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: How to find a solution<<klensin@mci.net (Joh
4333+ 12/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: How to find a solution<<esr@snark.thyrsus.co
4334+ 12/23 Kai Henningsen     Re: How to find a solution<<wall@cyrusoft.com (M
4335+ 12/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore writes: 
4336+ 12/24 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID text<<At 16.27 +0000 97-12-22, Gr
4337+ 12/24 Jacob Palme        Ideal implementation of Mail-Followup-To<<At 00.
4338+ 12/24 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4339+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Graham Klyne <GK@ACM
4340+ 12/24 Graham Klyne       Re: How to find a solution<<At 00:13 23/12/97 -0
4341+ 12/24 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID text<<At 04:45 24/12/97 +0100, Ja
4342+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4343+ 12/24 Jacob Palme        Re: How to find a solution<<At 21.14 +0200 97-12
4344+ 12/24 Jacob Palme        Recognizing that a message came from a certain m
4345+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4346+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<> Jacob 
4347+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> > Certainly the va
4348+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Reply-All Proposal with Possible User Interf
4349+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> That's a pretty go
4350+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> Keith Moore writes
4351+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> (3) Solutions whic
4352+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<Roger Fa
4353+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: How to find a solution<<Roger Fajman <RAF@CU
4354+ 12/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Mail-Followup-To in practice<<Roger Fajman write
4355+ 12/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4356+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Mail-Followup-To in practice<<> Roger Fajman
4357+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Meanwhile, in the real world...<<The list of MUA
4358+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: How to find a solution<<> At least while the
4359+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<> > I do
4360+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<Roger Fa
4361+ 12/24 "Roger Fajman"     Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<> Roger 
4362+ 12/24 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<Roger Fa
4363+ 12/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4364+ 12/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4366+ 12/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-All Proposal with Possible User Interf
4367+ 12/25 Jacob Palme        Table of all the issues and all the major propos
4368+ 12/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4369+ 12/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4370+ 12/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4371+ 12/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Recognizing that a message came from a certa
4372+ 12/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4373+ 12/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Issues for the Mail-Followup-To header field
4374+ 12/26 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> Keith Moore <moore
4375+ 12/26 Keith Moore        Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<> Keith Moor
4376+ 12/27 Keith Moore        are both efforts (redefine R-T / define M-F-T) m
4377+ 12/27 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> > And as far as I 
4378+ 12/27 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> > >Remember that t
4379+ 12/27 Keith Moore        Re: How to find a solution<<> (1) We should find
4380+ 12/27 Keith Moore        Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<> Roger 
4381+ 12/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: How to find a solution<<Keith Moore writes: 
4382+ 12/27 Keith Moore        Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4383+ 12/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<Keith Moore 
4384+ 12/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  data flow for policy declarations<<Keith Moore w
4385+ 12/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Mail-Followup-To in practice<<Roger Fajman w
4386+ 12/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4389+ 12/27 Kai Henningsen     Re: How to find a solution<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Ke
4390+ 12/26 Jacob Palme        Is white space allowed before ";"<<(I know that 
4391+ 12/28 Jacob Palme        Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<At 23.55 -05
4392+ 12/28 Jacob Palme        Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4393+ 12/28 Jacob Palme        New IETF draft about header registry<<I have now
4394+ 12/28 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<Keith Mo
4395+ 12/28 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: How to find a solution<<D. J. Bernstein <djb
4396+ 12/29 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4397+ 12/29 Jacob Palme        Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<What you
4398+ 12/29 Keith Moore        Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<> At 23.55 -
4399+ 12/29 Keith Moore        Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4400+ 12/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<Keith Moore 
4401+ 12/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  wishful thinking vs. reality<<Keith Moore writes
4402+ 12/30 Pete Resnick       Silly subjects (Was: wishful thinking vs. realit
4403+ 12/30 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<D. J. Bernst
4404+ 12/30 Jacob Palme        Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4405+ 12/31 Jacob Palme        Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<At 23.22 -05
4406+ 12/31 Jacob Palme        Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<At 17.24 +01
4407+ 12/31 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<Jacob Palme 
4408+ 12/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Rewriting considered harmful<<Jacob, please pay 
4409+ 12/31 Jacob Palme        Re: Rewriting considered harmful<<At 12.18 +0000
4410+ 12/31 Jacob Palme        Re: Rewriting considered harmful<<At 12.18 +0000
4411+ 01/02 Jamie Zawinski     Re: Why I don't use Reply-To:drums<<Jacob Palme 
4412+ 01/05 Graham Klyne       Reply-to wannabe (what we really really want?)<<
4413+ 01/05 Graham Klyne       Re: User interface for 'reply' command<<At 14:18
4414+ 01/05 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-to wannabe (what we really really want
4415+ 01/06 "Jack De Winter"   Re: How to find a solution<<At 05:12 PM 12/23/97
4416+ 01/06 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Table of all the issues and all the major pr
4417+ 01/06 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-to wannabe (what we really really want
4418+ 01/07 Michael CHAPMAN    Re: How to find a solution<<> > At 05:12 PM 12/2
4419+ 01/12 Jacob Palme        draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-04.txt<<A new versio
4420+ 01/14 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-03.txt<<-
4421+ 01/14 Jacob Palme        Change of name for mailing list<<The mailing lis
4422+ 01/23 Paul Overell       MAIL FROM and 503 reply<<draft-ietf-drums-smtpup
4423+ 01/23 Paul Overell       Re: MAIL FROM and 503 reply<<In article <Pine.SO
4424+ 01/23 James Berriman     Re: MAIL FROM and 503 reply<<At 17:12 23/1/98, P
4425+ 01/26 Philip Hazel       Re: MAIL FROM and 503 reply<<On Fri, 23 Jan 1998
4426+ 01/26 Philip Hazel       Re: MAIL FROM and 503 reply<<On Fri, 23 Jan 1998
4427+ 01/28 Simon Lyall        W3C, HTML Threading in email.<<The World Wide We
4428+ 02/06 Robert Elz         Re: Meanwhile, in the real world...<<Date: Wed, 
4429+ 02/20 Simon Lyall        status.<<I haven't seen any messages here for so
4430+ 03/13 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt submitted<<I sen
4431+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  X- fields<<Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>:
4432+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt submitted<<P
4433+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt submitted<<P
4434+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt submitted<<D
4435+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:40:30 -
4436+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  <<Pete Resnick has reminded all of us on the DRU
4437+ 03/16 Dan Wing           draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt: TURN<<This is a
4438+ 03/16 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt submitted<<O
4439+ 03/16 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: X- fields<<I can understand your point of vi
4440+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>: >
4441+ 03/17 Uzi Paz            Re: X- fields<<I fully agree with Robert Elz I t
4442+ 03/16 Ofer Inbar         Re: X- fields<<We're not changing the protocol, 
4443+ 03/17 Uzi Paz            RE: X- fields (private extensions)<<Using "X-" b
4444+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Woodhouse, Gregory J. <gregory.wo
4445+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:19:19 -
4446+ 03/16 Paul Hoffman / IM  RE: X- fields<<At 06:19 PM 3/16/98 -0600, Woodho
4447+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Ofer Inbar <cos@leftbank.com>: > 
4448+ 03/16 Dave Crocker       Re: X- fields<<At 08:05 PM 3/16/98 -0500, Eric S
4449+ 03/16 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenbur
4450+ 03/16 Christian Kuhtz    Re: X- fields<<Yes, sounds good to me. > Is this
4451+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:47:15 -
4452+ 03/17 Uzi Paz            Re: X- fields<<Experimental and de-facto standar
4453+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:22:33 +
4454+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:38:21 -
4455+ 03/16 "Michael A Quinla  Re: X- fields<<>3.6.9 Private extension fields >
4456+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Michael A Quinlan <mikeq@primenet
4457+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>: >
4458+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:35:13 -
4459+ 03/17 Jacob Palme        Re:<<At 00.44 +0100 98-03-17, "Eric S. Raymond" 
4460+ 03/17 Jacob Palme        RE: X- fields<<At 01.19 +0100 98-03-17, Woodhous
4461+ 03/17 "Michael A Quinla  Re: X- fields<<My questions really are, 1) What 
4462+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Michael A Quinlan <mikeq@primenet
4463+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re:<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>: > A good id
4464+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Line limit in 2.3 considered obscure<<In 2.3, wh
4465+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Request for editorial change to draft section 2<
4466+ 03/17 Internet-Drafts@n  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt<<--Ne
4467+ 03/17 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: X- fields<<At 02:55 PM 3/17/98 +1100, Robert
4468+ 03/17 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Re:<<The questions I think we should answer 
4469+ 03/17 Pete Resnick       Re: Line limit in 2.3 considered obscure<<On 3/1
4470+ 03/17 Pete Resnick       Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4471+ 03/18 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:47:23 -
4472+ 03/18 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To decisions (Jacob's untitled message
4473+ 03/18 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 04.47 +0100 98-03-17, Eric S. 
4474+ 03/17 hansen@pegasus4.b  RE: X- fields<<< Perhaps the issue is whether th
4475+ 03/17 hansen@pegasus4.b  Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4476+ 03/18 Uzi Paz            Re: X- fields<<On 18 Mar 1998 01:14 +0100, Jacob
4477+ 03/17 Bill McQuillan     Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<In section 2.
4478+ 03/17 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4479+ 03/17 Pete Resnick       Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<On 3/17/9
4480+ 03/17 "Michael A Quinla  Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<From: Pet
4481+ 03/17 Pete Resnick       Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<On 3/17/9
4482+ 03/18 Robert Elz         Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<Date: Tue
4483+ 03/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  how final newlines actually work<<Pete Resnick w
4484+ 03/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4485+ 03/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Your mail to Nathaniel (was Re: how final ne
4486+ 03/18 Philip Hazel       Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4487+ 03/17 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<My vote's
4488+ 03/18 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: X- fields<<Perhaps some definitions would be
4489+ 03/18 Nathaniel Borenst  Re: Your mail to Nathaniel (was Re: how final ne
4490+ 03/18 Nathaniel Borenst  Robotic spam should have stopped<<If anyone on t
4491+ 03/18 Paul Overell       Final CRLF and Content-MD5<<In article <v04010d0
4492+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> What we have learned from 20 ye
4493+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> My only problem with it express
4494+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re:<<Jacob, You left out the cleanest solution: 
4495+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> Possibly this can be strengthen
4496+ 03/18 Christian Kuhtz    Re: X- fields<<On Mar 18, Keith Moore <moore@cs.
4497+ 03/18 Christian Kuhtz    Re: X- fields<<On Mar 18, Keith Moore <moore@cs.
4498+ 03/18 Keith Moore        responses to Bart's questions<<> (A) Should it b
4499+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> | I disagree. The developer who
4500+ 03/19 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:05:49 -
4501+ 03/18 Jutta Degener      Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<Pete Resn
4502+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> | Problem is, if you define a h
4503+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<On 3/18/9
4504+ 03/19 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:26:17 -
4505+ 03/18 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: responses to Bart's questions<<On Mar 18, 5:
4506+ 03/19 Uzi Paz            Re: X- fields<<In fact, it might be that the fac
4507+ 03/18 James Berriman     Re: X- fields<<At 22:13 18/03/98, Keith Moore wr
4508+ 03/18 Christian Kuhtz    Re: X- fields<<On Mar 18, James Berriman <J.R.Be
4509+ 03/18 Jutta Degener      Re: Small Clarification to msg-fmt-04<<Pete Resn
4510+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> | I agree that it can easily tu
4511+ 03/19 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:21:28 -
4512+ 03/18 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: X- fields<<Earlier today I proposed specific
4513+ 03/18 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>: >
4514+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       Re: X- fields<<On 3/18/98 at 6:21 PM -0600, Keit
4515+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> One last time - nothing we do w
4516+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> Agreement. But I don't think th
4517+ 03/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  naming of response fields<<Jacob Palme writes: >
4518+ 03/18 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> >And if you're > >willing to pu
4519+ 03/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: X- fields<<Robert Elz writes: > I think X- i
4520+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       A different approach to the Reply-To problem<<As
4521+ 03/18 Pete Resnick       Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4522+ 03/19 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: X- fields<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>: >
4523+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> > > Agreement. But I don't thin
4524+ 03/19 Pete Resnick       References to other standards (Was: X- fields)<<
4525+ 03/19 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4526+ 03/19 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4527+ 03/19 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: References to other standards (Was: X- field
4528+ 03/19 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4529+ 03/19 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4530+ 03/19 Philip Hazel       RE: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4531+ 03/19 Ofer Inbar         Re: X- fields<<> I propose that IANA delegate ne
4532+ 03/19 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4533+ 03/19 Pete Resnick       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4534+ 03/19 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re:<<Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> s
4535+ 03/19 Jacob Palme        Re:<<At 23.09 +0100 98-03-18, Keith Moore wrote:
4536+ 03/19 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 23.05 +0100 98-03-18, Keith Mo
4537+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re:<<> > Jacob, > > > > You left out the cleanes
4538+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> > Offhand, I can't think of a s
4539+ 03/19 Pete Resnick       Re: X- fields<<On 3/19/98 at 1:59 PM -0600, Keit
4540+ 03/19 Pete Resnick       Re: Jacob's untitled message<<On 3/19/98 at 1:54
4541+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> >> X-Priority is an example of 
4542+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: responses to Bart's questions<<> > Subject: 
4543+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> Except that some form of implem
4544+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: naming of response fields<<> > (2) Define tw
4545+ 03/19 Keith Moore        allocation of non-X-fields (was Re: X- fields)<<
4546+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4547+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4548+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4549+ 03/19 Keith Moore        List behavior<<> Mailing lists, however, are muc
4550+ 03/19 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4551+ 03/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Request for editorial change to draft sectio
4552+ 03/20 James Berriman     Re: X- fields<<At 23:28 19/3/98, Keith Moore wro
4553+ 03/21 Robert Elz         Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4554+ 03/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4555+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4556+ 03/20 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4557+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4558+ 03/20 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4559+ 03/20 Jacob Palme        Idea for a new solution of the X-headers dispute
4561+ 03/20 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 20.59 +0100 98-03-19, Keith Mo
4562+ 03/20 Jacob Palme        Re: Header registry (was: X- fields)<<At 18.26 +
4563+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4564+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> > > X-Priority is an example of
4565+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4566+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: Idea for a new solution of the X-headers dis
4567+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: Header registry (was: X- fields)<<> > Yes: a
4568+ 03/20 Paul Fox           Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4569+ 03/20 Russ Allbery       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4570+ 03/20 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4571+ 03/20 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: List behavior<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu
4572+ 03/21 Robert Elz         Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<D
4573+ 03/21 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 22.04 +0100 98-03-20, Keith Mo
4575+ 03/21 Jacob Palme        Re: Header registry (was: X- fields)<<At 23.33 +
4576+ 03/21 Jacob Palme        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<A
4577+ 03/20 hansen@pegasus4.b  draft-ietf-hansen-pop3-xtndext-00.txt<<--XX In r
4578+ 03/22 Robert Elz         Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<D
4580+ 03/21 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4581+ 03/21 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: X- fields<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> sc
4583+ 03/21 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<J
4584+ 03/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4585+ 03/22 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 11.18 +0100 98-03-21, Claus An
4586+ 03/22 Jacob Palme        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<A
4587+ 03/22 Jacob Palme        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4588+ 03/22 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4589+ 03/23 Robert Elz         Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<D
4590+ 03/23 Robert Elz         Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4591+ 03/22 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4592+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4593+ 03/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4594+ 03/22 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4595+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4596+ 03/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: naming of response fields<<(Just correcting 
4597+ 03/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: allocation of non-X-fields (was Re: X- field
4598+ 03/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4599+ 03/23 Graham Klyne       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4600+ 03/23 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4601+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<Some of the 
4602+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4603+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Second attempt - A different approach<<Suggested
4604+ 03/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4605+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4606+ 03/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4607+ 03/23 Ofer Inbar         users are familiar with reply-to<<On Sun, 14 Dec
4608+ 03/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<Pete Res
4609+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4610+ 03/23 Peter Sylvester    Re: Second attempt - A different approach<<It se
4611+ 03/23 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4612+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Re: Second attempt - A different approach<<On 3/
4613+ 03/23 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Mailing Lists (was: Need for multiple reply dest
4614+ 03/23 Graham Klyne       Re: X- fields<<At 18:28 19/03/98 -0500, Keith Mo
4615+ 03/23 Graham Klyne       Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4616+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> >p.s. We've had similar discuss
4617+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4618+ 03/23 Jacob Palme        Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4619+ 03/23 Jacob Palme        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<A
4620+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: Second attempt - A different approach<<I vot
4621+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<At 10:29
4622+ 03/23 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4623+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4624+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4625+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4626+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: naming of response fields<<> Keith Moore wri
4627+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4628+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<> Some o
4629+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Second attempt - A different approach<<> Not
4630+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Re: Mailing Lists (was: Need for multiple reply 
4631+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4632+ 03/23 Pete Resnick       Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<On 3/23/
4633+ 03/23 Keith Moore        Respond-To, Also-Respond-To, List-Respond-To<<Ok
4634+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<> On 3/2
4635+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4636+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4637+ 03/23 Dave Crocker       Re: A different approach to the Reply-To problem
4638+ 03/24 Robert Elz         Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<Date: Mo
4639+ 03/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Respond-To, Also-Respond-To, List-Respond-To
4640+ 03/24 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Hopefully resolved Reply-To issues<<Pete: % 
4641+ 03/24 Graham Klyne       Re: Second attempt - A different approach<<At 10
4642+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4643+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4644+ 03/24 "R. Kelley Cook"   Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft 4<<
4645+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4646+ 03/24 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4647+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4648+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4649+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4650+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4651+ 03/25 Robert Elz         Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4652+ 03/24 Paul Fox           Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4653+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4654+ 03/24 Jacob Palme        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<A
4655+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4656+ 03/24 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Respond-To, Also-Respond-To, List-Respond-To
4657+ 03/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<K
4658+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<O
4659+ 03/24 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<I
4660+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4661+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4662+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Respond-To, Also-Respond-To, List-Respond-To
4663+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4664+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4665+ 03/24 ejnorman@doit.wis  Easy Reply-To: solution<<OK, folks, now don't ge
4666+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4667+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4668+ 03/24 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4669+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<>
4670+ 03/24 Keith Moore        Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4671+ 03/25 Philip Hazel       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4672+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Reply-To rough concensus points - From the Chair
4673+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Reply-To Harsh realities<<My personal observatio
4674+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Re: Header registry (was: X- fields)<<On Fri, 20
4675+ 03/25 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 02:43 25/03/98 
4676+ 03/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 11.43 +0100 98-
4677+ 03/25 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At present, "Reply
4678+ 03/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Jacob Palme <jpalm
4679+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On Wed, 25 Mar 199
4680+ 03/25 "Matthew Wall"     Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<--On Wed, Mar 25, 
4681+ 03/25 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On 3/25/98 at 12:4
4682+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On Wed, 25 Mar 199
4683+ 03/25 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On 3/25/98 at 1:48
4684+ 03/25 Ofer Inbar         Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Chris Newman <Chri
4685+ 03/26 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Date: Wed, 25 Mar 
4686+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Reply-Target Proposal<<Here's a proposal with th
4687+ 03/25 Pete Resnick       Re: Reply-Target Proposal<<On 3/25/98 at 3:03 PM
4688+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On Wed, 25 Mar 199
4689+ 03/25 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-Target Proposal<<On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, 
4690+ 03/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 21.38 +0100 98-
4691+ 03/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 19.41 +0100 98-
4692+ 03/25 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4693+ 03/25 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<P
4694+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  munging incentives<<Chris Newman writes: > The o
4695+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Followup-To in USENET<<Ofer Inbar writes: > We a
4696+ 03/26 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<> Date: Thu, 26 Ma
4697+ 03/26 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Another offer, use
4698+ 03/25 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: munging incentives<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.
4699+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  why public-reply-to is inferior<<Uzi Paz writes:
4700+ 03/26 Uzi Paz            Re: why public-reply-to is inferior<<On 26 Mar 1
4701+ 03/26 Keith Moore        Re: munging incentives<<> Why do so many users a
4702+ 03/26 Keith Moore        the absolutely essential feature to make Mail-Fo
4703+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: why public-reply-to is inferior<<Uzi Paz wri
4704+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: munging incentives<<Keith Moore writes: > As
4705+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On Thu, 26 Mar 199
4706+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Chris Newman write
4707+ 03/26 Chris Newman       A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<Given that
4709+ 03/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 20.48 +0100 98-
4710+ 03/26 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 04.52 +0100 98-
4711+ 03/26 "Cyrus Daboo"      Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<--On T
4712+ 03/26 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Jacob Palme writes
4713+ 03/26 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4714+ 03/26 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4715+ 03/26 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Need for multiple reply destination sets?<<P
4716+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4717+ 03/26 Jacob Palme        Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<At 11.
4718+ 03/27 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4719+ 03/27 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 22.01 +0100 98-
4720+ 03/26 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4721+ 03/26 Chris Newman       Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<On Thu
4722+ 03/26 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: why public-reply-to is inferior<<Please expl
4723+ 03/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Jacob Palme writes
4724+ 03/26 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: munging incentives<<This has been my experie
4725+ 03/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: why public-reply-to is inferior<<Woodhouse, 
4726+ 03/26 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<I like
4727+ 03/27 Philip Hazel       Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4728+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: munging incentives<<> > As far as I can tell
4729+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<> I li
4730+ 03/27 Alan Barrett       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4731+ 03/27 Uzi Paz            Re: why public-reply-to is inferior<<On 26 Mar 1
4732+ 03/27 Pete Resnick       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4733+ 03/27 Jacob Palme        Reply-To issue list<<Here is an attempt at a "Re
4734+ 03/27 Keith Moore        Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<Chris,
4735+ 03/29 Uzi Paz            Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<On Fri
4736+ 03/28 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4737+ 03/29 Keith Moore        Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<> How 
4738+ 03/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  implementation difficulty<<Keith Moore writes: >
4739+ 03/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  how mailing lists provide policy information to 
4740+ 03/29 Keith Moore        Re: how mailing lists provide policy information
4741+ 03/29 Keith Moore        Re: implementation difficulty<<> > Dont-Cc-Autho
4742+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: implementation difficulty<<Keith Moore write
4743+ 03/29 Robert Elz         lexical/syntax comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-
4744+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.
4745+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt
4746+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4747+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4748+ 03/30 Maurizio Codogno   Reply-To and friends<<Jacob: % Addition of one o
4749+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4750+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To issue list<<Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 
4751+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4752+ 03/30 Keith Moore        Re: implementation difficulty<<> Keith Moore wri
4753+ 03/29 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4754+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4755+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: implementation difficulty<<Keith Moore write
4756+ 03/29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<Uzi Pa
4757+ 03/29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<D. J. Bernstein <d
4758+ 03/29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Jacob Palme <jpalm
4759+ 03/30 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<Claus: % Not exact
4760+ 03/30 Alan Barrett       Re: Comments on the current "Reply-To:" in draft
4761+ 03/30 Keith Moore        Re: implementation difficulty<<> > And I disagre
4762+ 03/30 Graham Klyne       Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<>I don
4763+ 03/30 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4764+ 03/30 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4765+ 03/30 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4766+ 03/30 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4767+ 03/31 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<On 29 Mar 1998, [I
4768+ 03/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4769+ 03/30 "Jack De Winter"   Re: X- fields<<At 09:27 AM 3/17/98 -0500, Eric S
4770+ 03/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4771+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4772+ 03/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: implementation difficulty<<Keith Moore write
4773+ 03/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4774+ 03/30 Pete Resnick       Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4775+ 03/30 Robert Elz         Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4776+ 03/30 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4777+ 03/30 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4778+ 03/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4779+ 03/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4780+ 03/31 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4781+ 03/31 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4782+ 03/31 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4783+ 04/01 Jacob Palme        Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<<The
4784+ 04/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4785+ 04/02 Jacob Palme        Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4786+ 04/02 Robert Elz         Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4787+ 03/19 Jacob Palme        Re: X- fields<<At 22.59 +0100 98-03-18, Keith Mo
4788+ 04/03 Jacob Palme        Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4789+ 04/03 Robert Elz         Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4790+ 04/03 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> > If anything, we need to stren
4791+ 04/05 Robert Elz         Re: X- fields<<Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 22:06:35 -
4793+ 04/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4794+ 04/05 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To issue list<<At 07.44 +0100 98-03-30
4795+ 04/05 Michael Elkins     Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4796+ 04/05 Michael Elkins     Re: Vendor/product names in X-fields?<<On Sun, A
4797+ 04/06 Pete Resnick       Bare CRs and LFs<<One topic brought up at the wo
4798+ 04/06 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4799+ 04/06 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv
4800+ 04/06 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To issue list<<Date: 06 Apr 1998 10:10
4801+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To issue list<<At 10.10 +0200 98-04-06
4802+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To issue list<<At 10.10 +0200 98-04-06
4803+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4804+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: implementation difficulty<<Keith Moore wrote
4806+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To issue list<<At 10.10 +0200 98-04-06
4807+ 04/06 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Implementation status of "Mail-Followup-To"<
4808+ 04/06 Jacob Palme        Re: Reply-To issue list<<At 15.32 +0200 98-04-06
4809+ 04/06 Keith Moore        Re: implementation difficulty<<> Would it be pos
4810+ 04/06 internet!pegasus.  Re: Vendor/product names in X-fields?<<< At the 
4811+ 04/06 Keith Moore        Re: X- fields<<> Because getting rid of X- heade
4812+ 04/07 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To issue list<<> At 10.10 +0200 98-04-
4813+ 04/06 Michael Elkins     Re: Reply-To issue list<<On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at
4814+ 04/07 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To issue list<<On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Mic
4815+ 04/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Claus Andr F rber write
4816+ 04/06 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Reply-To issue list<<On Apr 7, 2:39am, Uzi P
4817+ 04/07 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To issue list<<On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Bar
4818+ 04/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Pete Resnick writes: > Any
4819+ 04/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Uzi Paz writes: > On Us
4820+ 04/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Uzi Paz writes: > If yo
4821+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: 7 Apr 1998 05:09:12 
4822+ 04/07 Jacob Palme        A solution for group reply redirection which eve
4823+ 04/07 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Uzi Paz <uzipaz@bgumail
4824+ 04/07 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv
4825+ 04/07 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari
4826+ 04/07 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv
4827+ 04/07 Robert Elz         Re: Reply-To issue list<<Date: 07 Apr 1998 08:25
4828+ 04/07 Chuck Foster       Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Robert
4829+ 04/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Robert Elz writes: > And i
4830+ 04/07 Jacob Palme        Allow ellipsis on References values (was: Reply-
4831+ 04/08 Uzi Paz            Re: Reply-To issue list<<On 7 Apr 1998 05:21 -00
4832+ 04/08 Uzi Paz            Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4833+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4834+ 04/07 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4835+ 04/07 Ofer Inbar         "followup" - difference between mail & news<<"D.
4836+ 04/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: "followup" - difference between mail & news<
4837+ 04/08 Maurizio Codogno   Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4838+ 04/08 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: 7 Apr 1998 17:43:26 
4839+ 04/08 Michael Elkins     Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4840+ 04/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Robert Elz writes: > That'
4841+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4842+ 04/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  overstriking survey<<Here's ``boldface'' in bold
4843+ 04/08 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: overstriking survey<<This seems to me to be 
4844+ 04/08 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4845+ 04/08 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Bare CRs and LFs<<Remember that there is an 
4846+ 04/09 Uzi Paz            RE: overstriking survey<<> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998
4847+ 04/09 Uzi Paz            Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4848+ 04/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  useless SMTP extensions<<Woodhouse, Gregory J. w
4849+ 04/09 Uzi Paz            Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4850+ 04/09 Uzi Paz            RE: overstriking survey<<I wrote: > This is a go
4851+ 04/08 Paul Fox           Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4852+ 04/09 Uzi Paz            Re: "followup" - difference between mail & news<
4853+ 04/08 Nathaniel Borenst  Re: useless SMTP extensions<<Excerpts from bulk.
4854+ 04/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: useless SMTP extensions<<Nathaniel Borenstei
4855+ 04/09 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: overstriking survey<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr
4856+ 04/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: overstriking survey<<On Apr 8, 10:15pm, D. J
4857+ 04/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: overstriking survey<<On Apr 9, 1:15am, Eric 
4858+ 04/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On 4/8/98 at 7:23 PM +0000
4859+ 04/09 Maurizio Codogno   Re: overstriking survey<<% Here's ``boldface'' i
4860+ 04/09 Jos Backus         Re: overstriking survey<<mutt 0.90.9 displays bo
4861+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: overstriking survey<<Date: 8 Apr 1998 22:15:
4862+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: overstriking survey<<Date: 8 Apr 1998 22:15:
4863+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: 8 Apr 1998 19:23:33 
4864+ 04/09 Mark Delany        Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<> | Message corruption, on
4865+ 04/09 Maurizio Codogno   Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4866+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 19:
4867+ 04/09 John C Klensin     Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 19:04:
4868+ 04/09 John C Klensin     Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 19:25:
4869+ 04/09 Nathaniel Borenst  Re: useless SMTP extensions<<Excerpts from bulk.
4870+ 04/09 Michael Elkins     Re: overstriking survey<<On Wed, Apr 08, 1998 at
4871+ 04/09 Jacob Palme        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4872+ 04/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Pete Resnick writes: > I'd
4873+ 04/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Robert Elz writes: > It is
4874+ 04/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<John C Klensin writes: > C
4875+ 04/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<John C Klensin writes: > B
4876+ 04/09 John C Klensin     Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:10:
4877+ 04/09 John C Klensin     Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 21:37:
4878+ 04/09 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4879+ 04/09 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv
4880+ 04/09 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4881+ 04/09 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4882+ 04/10 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Claus Andr Faerber <mai
4883+ 04/10 Peter Sylvester    Re: Reply-To issue list<<> Newsgroups: news.admi
4884+ 04/10 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4885+ 04/10 Uzi Paz            Other reply-to issues<<Parallel to the Mail-Foll
4886+ 04/10 Jacob Palme        Not one kind of recipients for all replies (was:
4887+ 04/10 Jacob Palme        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4888+ 04/10 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4889+ 04/10 Keith Moore        Re: A solution for group reply redirection which
4890+ 04/10 Keith Moore        Re: Not one kind of recipients for all replies (
4891+ 04/10 Keith Moore        there is no maillist-headers WG (was Re: Reply-T
4892+ 04/11 Uzi Paz            Other reply-to issues - corrected<<Due to a rush
4893+ 04/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv
4894+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<moore@
4895+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: Syntax issues in draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04
4896+ 04/11 Kai Henningsen     Re: overstriking survey<<djb@cr.yp.to (D. J. Ber
4897+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4898+ 04/11 Robert Elz         Re: Not one kind of recipients for all replies (
4899+ 04/11 "Michael A Quinla  Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4900+ 04/11 Kai Henningsen     How Headers are designed (was: Re: Headers for g
4901+ 04/11 Jacob Palme        Re: A simple proposal: Reply-To-Complete<<At 22.
4902+ 04/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: there is no maillist-headers WG (was Re: Rep
4903+ 04/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Reply-To issue list<<Peter Sylvester writes:
4904+ 04/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4905+ 04/10 Kai Henningsen     Re: Reply-To rough concensus points - From the C
4907+ 04/12 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: 9 Apr 1998 21:10:03 
4908+ 04/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Robert Elz writes: > the p
4909+ 04/12 Robert Elz         Re: Bare CRs and LFs<<Date: 12 Apr 1998 07:25:12
4910+ 04/12 Jacob Palme        Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<I have
4911+ 04/13 Robert Elz         Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<Da
4912+ 04/13 "Jack De Winter"   Re: Reply-To issue list<<>(b) If yes on (a): > S
4913+ 04/13 "Jack De Winter"   regarding process in DRUMS<<as a matter of proce
4914+ 04/13 Jacob Palme        Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<At
4915+ 04/14 Robert Elz         Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<Da
4916+ 04/14 Robert Elz         Re: regarding process in DRUMS<<Date: Mon, 13 Ap
4917+ 04/14 Keith Moore        <<I don't expect that another working group will
4918+ 04/14 Keith Moore        Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<pe
4919+ 04/14 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<It
4920+ 04/15 Robert Elz         Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<Da
4921+ 04/15 Steve Hole         Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<Me
4922+ 04/15 DRUMS WG Chair     Finishing Reply-To Debate<<Debate of new headers
4923+ 04/16 Lars-Johan Liman   Minutes from DRUMS WG meeting in Los Angeles.<<-
4924+ 04/16 Robert Elz         Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG meeting in Los Angeles
4925+ 04/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  folding inside quoted local parts<<Is the addres
4926+ 04/16 Graham Klyne       Re: Reply-To Harsh realities<<At 22:40 10/04/98 
4927+ 04/16 Graham Klyne       Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers?<<At
4928+ 04/16 Pete Resnick       Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<On 4/16/9
4929+ 04/17 Robert Elz         Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<Date: 16 
4930+ 04/17 Simon Lyall        Compatibility with DRUMS<<[ Apologies for not sa
4931+ 04/17 Jacob Palme        Re: Compatibility with DRUMS<<The drums draft ha
4932+ 04/17 John C Klensin     Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<I think t
4933+ 04/17 Robert Elz         Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<Date: Fri
4934+ 04/17 Philip Hazel       RSET inconsistency<<The text of draft-ietf-drums
4935+ 04/17 Robert Elz         Re: RSET inconsistency<<Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 1
4936+ 04/17 Pete Resnick       Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<On 4/17/9
4937+ 04/17 John C Klensin     Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<On Fri, 1
4938+ 04/17 John C Klensin     Re: RSET inconsistency<<On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:5
4939+ 04/18 Robert Elz         Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<Date: Fri
4940+ 04/17 John C Klensin     Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<On Sat, 1
4941+ 04/17 Pete Resnick       Re: Compatibility with DRUMS<<It's not at all cl
4942+ 04/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<John C Kl
4943+ 04/17 Jacob Palme        Re: Finishing Reply-To Debate<<At 08.24 +0200 98
4944+ 04/19 Kai Henningsen     Re: Lexical comments on draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt
4945+ 04/20 hansen@pegasus4.b  Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<< Countin
4946+ 04/21 Robert Elz         Re: folding inside quoted local parts<<Date: Mon
4947+ 04/24 "Randall S. Winch  What is the status of statusdraft-ietf-drums-smt
4948+ 04/25 Robert Elz         Re: What is the status of statusdraft-ietf-drums
4949+ 04/27 Philip Hazel       Re: RSET inconsistency<<On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Joh
4950+ 04/28 Robert Elz         Re: RSET inconsistency<<Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 1
4951+ 04/28 Robert Elz         Re: RSET inconsistency<<Ignore this bit of my la
4952+ 04/28 Robert Elz         Re: RSET inconsistency<<Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 1
4953+ 04/27 Philip Hazel       Re: RSET inconsistency<<On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Rob
4954+ 04/27 Philip Hazel       Re: RSET inconsistency<<On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Rob
4955+ 04/27 "Steven Clift"     Universal E-mail Online Event<<Greetings DRUMS, 
4956+ 04/28 mea@nic.funet.fi   RFC-821 and MS-RFC-821 ?<<Hello, Pray tell me, d
4957+ 04/29 Glenn Anderson     Re: RFC-821 and MS-RFC-821 ?<<>Hello, > > Pray t
4958+ 04/28 Ran Atkinson       Re: RFC-821 and MS-RFC-821 ?<<Glenn, Folks conce
4959+ 04/28 Randall Gellens    Re: RSET inconsistency<<At 7:45 AM -0700 4/27/98
4960+ 04/29 Robert Elz         Re: RSET inconsistency<<Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 1
4961+ 04/30 Nathaniel Borenst  Re: RFC-821 and MS-RFC-821 ?<<FYI, my contacts i
4962+ 05/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Mail-Followup-To in a message submission agent<<
4963+ 05/01 Keith Moore        Re: Mail-Followup-To in a message submission age
4964+ 05/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Mail-Followup-To in a message submission age
4965+ 05/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  which MTA is this?<<Transcript of an SMTP connec
4966+ 05/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  100-RCPT failures<<The MX for dynetics.com was d
4967+ 05/06 Simon Lyall        USEFOR draft out.<<Just a note that our first us
4968+ 05/06 "R. Kelley Cook"   Proposal for message format standard:<<I believe
4970+ 05/06 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: Proposal for message format standard:<<I wou
4971+ 05/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  subversion of WGs by document editors<<822 permi
4972+ 05/08 Pete Resnick       Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<On 5/8/98 
4973+ 05/07 Dave Crocker       Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<At 12:18 A
4974+ 05/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<The p
4975+ 05/08 Philip Hazel       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<On 8 
4976+ 05/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<"D. J
4977+ 05/08 Pete Resnick       Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<On 5/7/98 
4978+ 05/08 "Bart Schaefer"    draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-04.txt<<Is the syntax f
4979+ 05/08 Pete Resnick       Re: No FWS in References<<On 5/8/98 at 11:27 AM 
4980+ 05/08 Ran Atkinson       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<I don
4981+ 05/08 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<On Fri, 8 
4982+ 05/09 Robert Elz         Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Date:
4983+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Rober
4984+ 05/08 Dave Crocker       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<At 03
4985+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Dave 
4986+ 05/09 Robert Elz         Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Date:
4987+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Rober
4988+ 05/09 Robert Elz         Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Date:
4989+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Rober
4990+ 05/09 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<Pete Resni
4991+ 05/09 Jos Backus         Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<On Fr
4992+ 05/09 Dave Crocker       Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<At 09:50 A
4993+ 05/09 Dave Crocker       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<At 03
4994+ 05/09 Jacob Palme        Allow empty "To:" and "Cc:" without "To:"?<<At 0
4995+ 05/10 Robert Elz         Re: Allow empty "To:" and "Cc:" without "To:"?<<
4996+ 05/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  ehlo survey<<I just did another SMTP server surv
4997+ 05/09 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: ehlo survey<<Thanks for the survey, Dan. One
4998+ 05/10 2200tr1            <<Authenticated sender is <2200tr1@att.net> Subj
4999+ 05/10 Jacob Palme        Re: ehlo survey<<At 01.57 +0200 98-05-10, D. J. 
5000+ 05/10 Peter Sylvester    Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Is th
5001+ 05/10 Peter Sylvester    Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<> > I
5002+ 05/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  nonstandard zone names<<822bis says that all non
5003+ 05/10 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: nonstandard zone names<<"D. J. Bernstein" wr
5004+ 05/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  *.net ehlo survey<<I did another survey, this ti
5005+ 05/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: nonstandard zone names<<D. J. Bernstein <djb
5006+ 05/11 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: nonstandard zone names<<On 11 May 1998 01:37
5007+ 05/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: nonstandard zone names<<Let's try an example
5008+ 05/11 "Larry Osterman (  RE: nonstandard zone names<<That's nice, but wha
5009+ 05/11 Dave Crocker       Non-standard contributions and contributors<<At 
5010+ 05/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: nonstandard zone names<<Larry Osterman (Exch
5011+ 05/12 Robert Elz         Re: nonstandard zone names<<Date: 12 May 1998 00
5012+ 05/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: nonstandard zone names<<Robert Elz writes: >
5013+ 05/12 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: nonstandard zone names<<D. J. Bernstein <djb
5014+ 05/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: nonstandard zone names<<> Treating it as "+0
5015+ 05/12 "Gregory J. Woodh  Re: Cc SHOULD NOT appear without To?<<Ugh...This
5016+ 05/12 "Randall S. Winch  3.6.4 (third and last two paragraphs)<<1) The ne
5017+ 05/12 "Randall S. Winch  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<On Sa
5018+ 05/13 "Randall S. Winch  Where do the revised RFC1123 SMTP limits go?<<--
5019+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: Where do the revised RFC1123 SMTP limits go?
5020+ 05/13 Philip Hazel       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<On Tu
5021+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Date:
5022+ 05/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  RFC 2119 violations<<The following SHOULDs in ms
5023+ 05/13 Johnny Eriksson    Re: RFC 2119 violations<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@
5024+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Date: 13 May 1998 09:12
5025+ 05/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Robert Elz writes: > Th
5026+ 05/13 Simon Lyall        Re: RFC 2119 violations<<On Wed, 13 May 1998, Ro
5027+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Date: 13 May 1998 11:01
5028+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 
5029+ 05/13 hansen@pegasus4.b  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Randa
5030+ 05/13 tony@att.com       Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<Randa
5031+ 05/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Robert Elz writes: > Oh
5032+ 05/13 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: RFC 2119 violations<<On 13 May 1998 09:12:11
5033+ 05/13 Randall Gellens    Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<At 8:
5034+ 05/13 Randall Gellens    Re: RFC 2119 violations<<At 3:48 PM -0700 5/13/9
5035+ 05/14 "Randall S. Winch  Re: subversion of WGs by document editors<<On We
5036+ 05/13 Chris Newman       Re: RFC 2119 violations<<On Wed, 13 May 1998, D.
5037+ 05/14 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Are there really no min
5038+ 05/14 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: RFC 2119 violations<<Maybe the MAY in the de
5039+ 05/14 Dave Crocker       Less frustrating mailing list interactions<<Folk
5040+ 05/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Less frustrating mailing list interactions<<
5041+ 05/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations<<Perry E. Metzger writes
5042+ 05/14 Chris Newman       decorum (was Re: RFC 2119 violations)<<On Thu, 1
5043+ 05/14 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Less frustrating mailing list interactions<<
5044+ 05/14 Jos Backus         Re: Less frustrating mailing list interactions<<
5045+ 05/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: Less frustrating mailing list interactions<<
5046+ 05/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: RFC 2119 violations<<kcook@ibm.net (R. Kelle
5047+ 05/17 John C Klensin     State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<First of
5048+ 05/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<John
5049+ 05/17 John C Klensin     Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<On S
5050+ 05/17 John C Klensin     TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Dan is 
5051+ 05/17 John C Klensin     SMTP session initiation and 554<<This was done o
5052+ 05/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<John
5053+ 05/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  spaces inside brackets<<Here's another example o
5054+ 05/18 Robert Elz         Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<Date
5055+ 05/18 Robert Elz         Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Dat
5056+ 05/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  precise time zones<<This is a quick summary of (
5057+ 05/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<Robe
5058+ 05/18 Robert Elz         Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<Date
5059+ 05/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<Robe
5060+ 05/18 John C Klensin     Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<On 
5061+ 05/18 Chris Newman       Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<On 
5062+ 05/18 Kevin Johnson      Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<On 
5063+ 05/18 "Michael Quinlan"  Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Dep
5064+ 05/18 Kevin Johnson      Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<On 
5065+ 05/18 Russ Allbery       Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<D J 
5066+ 05/18 Russ Allbery       Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Mic
5067+ 05/19 "Jack De Winter"   Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<>> 
5068+ 05/19 "Jeff Stephenson"  Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Fro
5069+ 05/19 Kai Henningsen     Re: State of 821bis and RSET inconsistency<<rra@
5070+ 05/19 Kai Henningsen     Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<kjj
5071+ 05/19 John C Klensin     Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<> L
5072+ 05/19 Randall Gellens    Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<At 
5073+ 05/20 Robert Elz         Re: TURN in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt<<Dat
5074+ 05/21 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt<<--Ne
5075+ 05/21 John C Klensin     draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt<<The long-overdu
5076+ 05/21 John C Klensin     erratum in draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt<<Mich
5077+ 05/21 Paul Overell       draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt, Received line s
5078+ 05/22 Philip Hazel       Re: draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt, Received li
5079+ 05/22 Jacob Palme        Add FWS and CFWS to the ABNF standard<<At 17.04 
5080+ 05/25 Robert Elz         Re: Add FWS and CFWS to the ABNF standard<<Date:
5081+ 05/24 Chris Newman       Re: draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt<<On Thu, 21 
5082+ 05/26 Keith Moore        Re: draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-07.txt<<> Question 
5083+ 06/01 Chris Newman       Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<This message is in 
5084+ 06/02 Jacob Palme        Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 20.36 +0200 
5085+ 06/02 Gregory Neil Shap  Draft 07 comments<<I've reviewed draft-ietf-drum
5086+ 06/02 John Beck          Comments on smtpupd-07<<I noted these and others
5087+ 06/02 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<>literals and d
5088+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<Date: Tue, 02 J
5089+ 06/02 Dan Wing           Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<>I used it in a
5090+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<Date: Tue, 2 Ju
5091+ 06/03 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 09:01 AM 6/3
5092+ 06/03 John C Klensin     Re: Draft 07 comments<<Will pick up the typos --
5093+ 06/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<kre@munnari.OZ.
5094+ 06/03 John Beck          Re: Draft 07 comments<<gshapiro> Section 3.10, f
5095+ 06/03 John C Klensin     Re: Draft 07 comments<<On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:34
5096+ 06/03 John Beck          Re: Draft 07 comments<<jbeck> IMO the text shoul
5097+ 06/03 John Beck          proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<Draft 07 read
5098+ 06/04 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 10:25 AM 6/3
5099+ 06/04 Robert Elz         Re: Draft 07 comments<<Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11
5100+ 06/03 John C Klensin     Re: Draft 07 comments<<On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:51
5101+ 06/03 John C Klensin     Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<On Wed, 0
5102+ 06/03 John Beck          Re: Draft 07 comments<<jbeck> I suggest adding: 
5103+ 06/03 John Beck          Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<Draft 07 
5104+ 06/04 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<>ps: there's an
5105+ 06/04 Eric Allman        Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<This is s
5106+ 06/04 John C Klensin     Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<On Thu, 0
5107+ 06/04 John Beck          Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<eric> Thi
5108+ 06/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<Eric Allm
5109+ 06/04 Gregory Neil Shap  Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<>> Given 
5110+ 06/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: proposed clarification for 3.10.2<<Gregory N
5111+ 06/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  822 phrase semantics?<<John C Klensin writes: > 
5112+ 06/04 Pete Resnick       Re: 822 phrase semantics?<<On 6/4/98 at 10:14 PM
5113+ 06/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-07 comments<<> The objective of the Simp
5114+ 06/05 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<One particular point he
5115+ 06/05 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Date: 05 Jun 1998 03:02
5116+ 06/05 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Robert Elz <kre@munnari
5117+ 06/05 Jamie Zawinski     Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Russ Allbery wrote: > >
5118+ 06/05 Tony Hansen        Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Jamie Zawinski wrote: >
5119+ 06/05 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<... > Don't I get essen
5120+ 06/05 WJCarpenter        Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<jwz> Frankly I think th
5121+ 06/05 WJCarpenter        Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<tony> Don't I get essen
5122+ 06/05 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:
5123+ 06/05 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 05:
5124+ 06/06 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<John C Klensin <klensin
5126+ 06/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: 822 phrase semantics?<<djb@cr.yp.to (D. J. B
5127+ 06/06 Keith Moore        Re: 822 phrase semantics?<<neither the phrase no
5128+ 06/08 Jacob Palme        Control-L<<Is there any rule for handling Contro
5129+ 06/08 Graham Klyne       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<I'm a little pu
5130+ 06/08 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Control-L<<Jacob Palme writes: > Is there an
5131+ 06/08 Tony Hansen        Re: Control-L<<Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Jacob P
5132+ 06/08 Keith Moore        Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<> I'm a little 
5133+ 06/09 Jacob Palme        Full information about the reply structure<<Comp
5134+ 06/09 Kai Henningsen     Re: Control-L<<perry@piermont.com (Perry E. Metz
5135+ 06/09 Chris Newman       Re: Control-L<<On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Jacob Palme w
5136+ 06/09 Chris Newman       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<On Tue, 2 Jun 1
5137+ 06/09 Randall Gellens    Re: Draft 07 comments<<At 3:01 PM -0700 6/3/98, 
5138+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Robert Elz writes: > a 
5139+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<> > A significant perce
5140+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<John C Klensin writes: 
5141+ 06/10 Robert Elz         Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Date: 10 Jun 1998 06:11
5142+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<Russ Allbery writes: > 
5143+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  VRFY is inherently broken<<> > VRFY, like CAPS, 
5144+ 06/10 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 01:14 PM 6/9
5145+ 06/10 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Control-L<<Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innoso
5146+ 06/10 Jacob Palme        Re: Control-L<<At 21.57 +0200 98-06-09, Chris Ne
5147+ 06/10 Keith Moore        RFC 2119 section 6<<Dan writes: > RFC 2119 subse
5148+ 06/10 Keith Moore        Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<> That means th
5149+ 06/10 Keith Moore        Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<> What are the 
5150+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 section 6<<Keith Moore writes: > I 
5151+ 06/10 Randall Gellens    Comments on 821-bis -07<<(I've removed any comme
5152+ 06/11 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 2119 section 6 (and VRFY)<<Date: 10 Jun 
5153+ 06/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  VRFY configurability requirements<<> this clearl
5154+ 06/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr
5155+ 06/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: VRFY configurability requirements<<D. J. Ber
5156+ 06/11 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: Control-L<<In US-ASCII, which uses ISO Contr
5157+ 06/11 Kai Henningsen     Re: Full information about the reply structure<<
5158+ 06/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY configurability requirements<<> C: VRFY
5159+ 06/11 Kai Henningsen     Re: Control-L<<Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no (Har
5160+ 06/12 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: VRFY configurability requirements<<D. J. Ber
5161+ 06/12 Chris Newman       Re: Control-L<<On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Harald Tveit
5162+ 06/12 Chris Newman       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<On Wed, 10 Jun 
5163+ 06/12 Chris Newman       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<On Wed, 10 Jun 
5164+ 06/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY configurability requirements<<> I.e. th
5165+ 06/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  anyone using EXPN?<<Chris Newman writes: > I thi
5166+ 06/12 Chris Newman       Re: Full information about the reply structure<<
5167+ 06/12 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<>I believe we s
5168+ 06/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<Paul Hoffman / 
5169+ 06/12 Pete Resnick       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<On 6/12/98 at 8
5170+ 06/13 John C Klensin     Re: anyone using EXPN?<<On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:1
5171+ 06/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  numeric MX records<<There's a never-ending strea
5172+ 06/15 Graham Klyne       Re: Full information about the reply structure<<
5173+ 06/15 "Radu Bacioiu"     Q about RFC 821<<I'm not sure if this is the cor
5174+ 06/17 John C Klensin     Re: Q about RFC 821<<On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:05:5
5175+ 06/15 Peter Koch         Re: numeric MX records<<Dan Bernstein wrote: > O
5176+ 06/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Peter Koch writes: > It 
5177+ 06/17 Philip Hazel       Re: numeric MX records<<On 17 Jun 1998, D. J. Be
5178+ 06/18 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 1
5179+ 06/17 Pete Resnick       Re: numeric MX records<<On 6/14/98 at 11:37 PM +
5180+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Philip Hazel writes: > A
5181+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Robert Elz writes: > Exc
5182+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Pete Resnick writes: > I
5183+ 06/18 Glenn Anderson     Re: numeric MX records<<>> So you end up moving 
5184+ 06/18 Brian Stafford     Re: numeric MX records<<Glenn Anderson wrote: > 
5185+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Glenn Anderson writes: >
5186+ 06/18 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: 18 Jun 1998 09:49:
5187+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Robert Elz writes: > But
5188+ 06/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: numeric MX records<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes
5189+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Perry E. Metzger writes:
5190+ 06/18 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: numeric MX records<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.
5191+ 06/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<> If you put an IP addre
5192+ 06/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: numeric MX records<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes
5193+ 06/18 Pete Resnick       Re: numeric MX records<<On 6/18/98 at 6:24 AM +0
5194+ 06/19 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: 18 Jun 1998 12:09:
5195+ 06/18 Peter Koch         Re: numeric MX records<<Dan Bernstein wrote: > D
5196+ 06/19 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 1
5197+ 06/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Robert Elz writes: > The
5198+ 06/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<RFC 1123: > > Whenever a
5199+ 06/19 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Control-L<<Claus Andr F rber <mail-std-list@
5200+ 06/19 Keith Moore        On numeric MX records<<Read my lips: "No new fea
5201+ 06/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: On numeric MX records<<Keith Moore writes: >
5202+ 06/20 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: 19 Jun 1998 08:22:
5203+ 06/20 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: 19 Jun 1998 08:14:
5204+ 06/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Robert Elz writes: > the
5205+ 06/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Robert Elz writes: > Bou
5206+ 06/19 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: numeric MX records<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes
5207+ 06/20 Robert Elz         Re: numeric MX records<<Date: 20 Jun 1998 01:39:
5208+ 06/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: numeric MX records<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Rober
5209+ 06/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: numeric MX records<<Kai Henningsen writes: >
5210+ 06/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: numeric MX records<<djb@cr.yp.to (D. J. Bern
5211+ 06/20 Keith Moore        Re: numeric MX records<<> In the meantime, howev
5212+ 06/20 Keith Moore        Re: numeric MX records<<> New implementors need 
5213+ 06/21 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: numeric MX records<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes
5214+ 06/22 Philip Hazel       Re: numeric MX records<<On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Rob
5215+ 06/23 Maurizio Codogno   Re: numeric MX records<<Kai writes in <6wCSTNlXw
5216+ 06/25 DRUMS Chair        numeric MX records -- from the chair<<I rule the
5217+ 07/08 Keith Moore        [Off Topic] Need review for POP3 extension mecha
5218+ 07/17 Chris Newman       The end is near?<<I'm expecting an SMTP -07 revi
5219+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  59-byte Reply-To truncation<<I've received (1) a
5220+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: The end is near?<<Chris Newman writes: > If 
5221+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  hop counting prohibition<<Hop counting is nearly
5222+ 07/21 Philip Hazel       Re: The end is near?<<On 20 Jul 1998, D. J. Bern
5223+ 07/21 John C Klensin     Re: The end is near?<<On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:45:
5224+ 07/21 "Mike Gahrns (Exc  RE: [Off Topic] Need review for POP3 extension m
5225+ 07/22 Randall Gellens    RE: [Off Topic] Need review for POP3 extension m
5226+ 07/22 "Mike Gahrns"      Re: [Off Topic] Need review for POP3 extension m
5227+ 07/23 Chris Newman       smtpupd-07 comments (fwd)<<I believe this is the
5228+ 07/23 "Randall S. Winch  Re: smtpupd-07 comments (fwd)<<On Thu, 23 Jul 19
5229+ 07/27 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-07 comments (fwd)<<Everyone, Sorry, 
5230+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  how to fix the problems<<As requested, I am spli
5231+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  821->821bis inertia<<John C Klensin writes: > My
5232+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  klensin's fragile emotional state<<Klensin says 
5233+ 07/28 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-07 comments<<I promised to review Da
5234+ 07/28 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Comments on DJB's comments<<I have added lab
5235+ 07/28 Nick_Shelness@mot  More meaningful key.<<I posted a response to Phi
5236+ 07/28 Philip Hazel       Re: Comments on DJB's comments<<On Tue, 28 Jul 1
5237+ 07/28 Philip Hazel       Re: Comments on DJB's comments<<On Tue, 28 Jul 1
5238+ 07/28 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: klensin's fragile emotional state<<"D. J. Be
5239+ 07/28 Dave Crocker       fragile emotional states<<We need, quite simply,
5240+ 07/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Comments on DJB's comments (was Re: smtpupd-
5241+ 07/28 Chris Newman       Re: smtpupd-07 comments (fwd)<<On Mon, 27 Jul 19
5242+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: klensin's fragile emotional state<<It will b
5243+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: fragile emotional states<<Dave Crocker write
5244+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  reliably and efficiently<<821bis starts out by s
5245+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  relaying and gatewaying<<821bis uses ``gateway''
5246+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  suddenly closing connections<<> > > An SMTP serv
5247+ 07/28 Russ Allbery       Re: suddenly closing connections<<D J Bernstein 
5248+ 07/28 Pete Resnick       Re: relaying and gatewaying<<On 7/28/98 at 10:46
5249+ 07/28 Pete Resnick       Re: suddenly closing connections<<On 7/28/98 at 
5250+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  QUIT<<I am not waiting for a QUIT response. I ob
5251+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<I treat the invalid co
5252+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  local time in Received lines<<Shelness says that
5253+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: suddenly closing connections<<Russ Allbery w
5254+ 07/28 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: local time in Received lines<<"D. J. Bernste
5255+ 07/28 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: suddenly closing connections<<"D. J. Bernste
5256+ 07/28 Russ Allbery       Re: suddenly closing connections<<D J Bernstein 
5257+ 07/29 Glenn Anderson     Re: QUIT<<At 12:43am +0000 29/7/1998, D. J. Bern
5258+ 07/29 Robert Elz         Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Date: 29 Jul 1998 
5259+ 07/29 Robert Elz         Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Date: Wed, 29 Jul 
5260+ 07/29 Philip Hazel       Re: relaying and gatewaying<<On 28 Jul 1998, D. 
5261+ 07/29 Philip Hazel       Re: local time in Received lines<<On 29 Jul 1998
5262+ 07/29 WJCarpenter        Re: local time in Received lines<<When you think
5263+ 07/29 WJCarpenter        Re: local time in Received lines<<When you think
5264+ 07/29 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: local time in Received lines<<Bill, > The ac
5265+ 07/29 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: QUIT<<Message-ID: <SIMEON.9807291131.F22748@
5266+ 07/29 Pete Resnick       Resolving 821/822 references<<Back in the late M
5267+ 07/29 John C Klensin     Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<On Wed, 29 Jul 199
5268+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: QUIT<<> This ad-hominem argument misrepresen
5269+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<On Wed, 29 Jul 199
5270+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: local time in Received lines<<On Wed, 29 Jul
5271+ 07/29 "Larry Osterman (  RE: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<But eliminating th
5272+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Chris Newman write
5273+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: fragile emotional states<<On Tue, 28 Jul 199
5274+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: reliably and efficiently<<On Tue, 28 Jul 199
5275+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: QUIT<<Chris Newman writes: > However, we kno
5276+ 07/29 Chris Newman       Re: relaying and gatewaying<<On Tue, 28 Jul 1998
5277+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  call for votes on QUIT<<I'd like to know what ev
5278+ 07/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: suddenly closing connections<<Russ Allbery w
5279+ 07/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: call for votes on QUIT<<"D. J. Bernstein" wr
5280+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Robert Elz writes:
5281+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<John C Klensin wri
5282+ 07/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<"D. J. Bernstein" 
5283+ 07/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<"D. J. Bernstein" 
5284+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Larry Osterman (Ex
5285+ 07/29 "Larry Osterman (  RE: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<But the contents o
5286+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: call for votes on QUIT<<Perry E. Metzger wri
5287+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Perry E. Metzger w
5288+ 07/29 "Randall S. Winch  Re: QUIT<<On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Chris Newman wrot
5289+ 07/29 Dave Crocker       Re: call for votes on QUIT<<sigh. It continues t
5290+ 07/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<"D. J. Bernstein" 
5291+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  miscellaneous corrections<<I figure that correct
5292+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: call for votes on QUIT<<Dave Crocker writes:
5293+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Larry Osterman (Ex
5294+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: call for votes on QUIT<<``vote vb (1552) 1: 
5295+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: relaying and gatewaying<<Chris Newman writes
5296+ 07/30 mea@nic.funet.fi   A case of weird QUIT client...<<Here is a bit of
5297+ 07/30 "Larry Osterman (  RE: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Oh, and before you
5298+ 07/30 John C Klensin     Re: RE: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<On Thu, 30 Jul
5299+ 07/30 "Larry Osterman (  RE: RE: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<But you DID do
5300+ 07/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A case of weird QUIT client...<<mea@nic.fune
5301+ 07/30 Randall Gellens    Re: Comments on comments on comments....<<I don'
5302+ 07/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  ESMTP in the 220 line<<> in MY honest opinion, t
5303+ 07/31 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments<<Larry Osterman wro
5304+ 07/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  require complete syntax checks?<<Consider a clie
5305+ 07/31 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: require complete syntax checks?<<All, > Cons
5306+ 07/31 Philip Hazel       Re: require complete syntax checks?<<On Fri, 31 
5307+ 07/31 Philip Hazel       Re: require complete syntax checks?<<On 31 Jul 1
5308+ 07/31 Randall Gellens    Re: require complete syntax checks?<<At 4:01 AM 
5309+ 08/01 Glenn Anderson     Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<>> in MY honest opini
5310+ 07/31 Randall Gellens    Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<I know of implementat
5311+ 07/31 Chris Newman       Re: require complete syntax checks?<<My personal
5312+ 07/31 Chris Newman       Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, 
5313+ 08/02 Robert Elz         Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<Date: Fri, 31 Jul 199
5314+ 08/01 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<At 01:38 AM 8/2/98 +1
5315+ 08/01 Randall Gellens    Re: require complete syntax checks?<<At 9:39 AM 
5316+ 08/02 John C Klensin     821bis, section 3.3<<Several people have pointed
5318+ 08/03 Philip Hazel       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joh
5319+ 08/03 Philip Hazel       Re: require complete syntax checks?<<On Fri, 31 
5320+ 08/03 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:
5321+ 08/03 Philip Hazel       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joh
5322+ 08/03 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:
5323+ 08/04 Robert Elz         Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 
5324+ 08/03 Chris Newman       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joh
5325+ 08/03 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:
5326+ 08/03 Chris Newman       Agenda for Chicago<<Here's a proposed agenda for
5327+ 08/03 Chris Newman       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joh
5328+ 08/03 Randall Gellens    Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<I like the preview text
5329+ 08/03 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt and CR/LF<<I've 
5330+ 08/04 Philip Hazel       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<I'm happy with the prev
5331+ 08/04 Philip Hazel       Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Chr
5332+ 08/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<<The
5333+ 08/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: require complete syntax checks?<<The 821bis 
5334+ 08/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<Chris Newman writes: 
5335+ 08/04 "Carl-Uno Manros"  Documenting bad implementations<<Guys, You seem 
5336+ 08/04 Philip Hazel       Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<On 4 Aug 1998, D. J. 
5337+ 08/04 Scott Bradner      Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5338+ 08/04 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5339+ 08/04 DRUMS WG Chair     Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<This is an 
5340+ 08/04 Chris Newman       Re: require complete syntax checks?<<On Tue, 4 A
5341+ 08/04 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5342+ 08/04 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: 821bis, section 3.3<<Unless there are signif
5343+ 08/04 Randall Gellens    Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt and CR/LF<<A
5344+ 08/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<Philip Hazel writes: 
5345+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  corrections to list of issues<<> The issue of 8-
5346+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: require complete syntax checks?<<Chris Newma
5347+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5348+ 08/05 Norbert Bollow     Clarification request: limits on use of null rev
5349+ 08/04 "Perry E. Metzger  What is Consensus?<<"D. J. Bernstein" writes: > 
5350+ 08/04 John C Klensin     RFC2119 and 821bis<<Since this has turned into a
5351+ 08/04 John C Klensin     Procedural note on draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08<<
5352+ 08/04 Scott Bradner      Re: RFC2119 and 821bis<<---- (ii) The rather nar
5353+ 08/04 Paul Hethmon       Re: RFC2119 and 821bis<<** Reply to note from Jo
5354+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5355+ 08/04 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5356+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  WARNING: Opinions of mailing-list participants w
5357+ 08/04 Craig Partridge    Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5358+ 08/04 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: WARNING: relevant opinions are paid attentio
5359+ 08/04 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5360+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5361+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Date: T
5362+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  results of QUIT poll<<I asked for reactions to t
5363+ 08/05 Philip Hazel       Re: Clarification request: limits on use of null
5364+ 08/05 Maurizio Codogno   Re: require complete syntax checks?<<> All of th
5365+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<There h
5366+ 08/05 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5367+ 08/05 Nick_Shelness@mot  Attendence in Chicago<<Maurizio Codogno <mau@bea
5368+ 08/05 Robert Elz         Re: results of QUIT poll<<Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 
5369+ 08/05 Dave Sill          Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<DRUMS W
5370+ 08/05 Norbert Bollow     Re: Clarification request: limits on use of null
5371+ 08/05 Philip Hazel       Re: Clarification request: limits on use of null
5372+ 08/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Metzger's cavalier attitude<<Perry E. Metzge
5374+ 08/05 Norbert Bollow     Re: Clarification request: limits on use of null
5375+ 08/05 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Message
5376+ 08/05 Chris Newman       RFC 2119<<[Note this is a personal opinion] I ha
5377+ 08/05 "Theodore Y. Ts'o  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5378+ 08/05 Pete Resnick       Re: RFC 2119<<On 8/5/98 at 10:53 AM -0700, Chris
5380+ 08/05 Jacob Palme        Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<At 06.05 +0200 98-07-
5381+ 08/05 Philip Hazel       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<On Wed 
5382+ 08/05 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<> Er, w
5383+ 08/05 Pete Resnick       Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<On 8/5/98 at 10:04 PM
5384+ 08/05 DRUMS WG Chair     mail-list participation<<All decisions made at a
5385+ 08/05 Chris Newman       alias/list issue<<[this message has personal opi
5386+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5387+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Lyndon 
5388+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  RFC 2119 and transitions<<Chris Newman says that
5389+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  RFC 2119 and paternalistic market interference<<
5390+ 08/05 Paul Hethmon       Re: alias/list issue<<** Reply to note from Chri
5391+ 08/05 Scott Bradner      2119 restrictions<<This discussion about the iss
5392+ 08/06 Harald Tveit Alve  Firewalls and mailing lists (Re: RFC 2119 violat
5393+ 08/06 Philip Hazel       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<On Wed,
5394+ 08/06 Philip Hazel       Re: alias/list issue<<On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Chris 
5395+ 08/06 Robert Elz         Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Date: T
5396+ 08/06 Philip Hazel       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<On Thu,
5397+ 08/06 Jacob Palme        Support for restricted special applications in 8
5398+ 08/06 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 05:36 PM 6/1
5399+ 08/06 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt<<--Ne
5400+ 08/06 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: Support for restricted special applications 
5401+ 08/07 Robert Elz         Re: Support for restricted special applications 
5402+ 08/06 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Support for restricted special applications 
5403+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Robert 
5404+ 08/06 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<"D. J. 
5405+ 08/06 jack@wildbear.on.  Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<At 01:14 AM 8/1/98 +1
5406+ 08/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Perry E
5407+ 08/06 jack@wildbear.on.  FOR DAN BERNSTEIN's EYES<<My apolgies for using 
5408+ 08/07 Robert Elz         Re: ESMTP in the 220 line<<Date: Thu, 06 Aug 199
5409+ 08/06 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt posting delay<<M
5410+ 08/06 "Theodore Y. Ts'o  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5411+ 08/06 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<"D. J. 
5412+ 08/06 "Lee Thompson"     Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt'<<A
5413+ 08/06 Keith Moore        Re: Support for restricted special applications 
5414+ 08/06 "Randall S. Winch  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5415+ 08/06 "Theodore Y. Ts'o  Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement<
5416+ 08/07 Glenn Anderson     Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<>Robert
5418+ 08/06 John C Klensin     Re: Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5419+ 08/06 Randall Gellens    Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5420+ 08/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Quick s
5421+ 08/06 John Myers         Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt and CR/LF<<I
5422+ 08/06 John Myers         Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<DRUMS W
5423+ 08/07 Peter Sylvester    Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<> > Qui
5424+ 08/07 Philip Hazel       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<On 7 Au
5425+ 08/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<Elz is 
5426+ 08/07 Philip Hazel       Re: Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5427+ 08/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  saving time in TCP stacks<<Philip Hazel writes: 
5428+ 08/07 Philip Hazel       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5429+ 08/07 Peter Sylvester    Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<> > Pet
5430+ 08/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  A fundamental QUIT problem<<Here's one situation
5431+ 08/07 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt<<--Ne
5432+ 08/07 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-v2-00.txt<<--Ne
5433+ 08/07 Philip Hazel       Re: A fundamental QUIT problem<<On 7 Aug 1998, D
5434+ 08/07 Graham Klyne       Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues<<At 12:1
5435+ 08/07 Tom Edwards        Why MUST i QUIT?<<There seems to be a lack of ju
5436+ 08/07 John C Klensin     Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5437+ 08/07 "Lee Thompson"     Re: Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5438+ 08/07 "Randall S. Winch  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5439+ 08/07 Pete Resnick       Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt and CR/LF<<O
5440+ 08/07 Chris Newman       Re: Why MUST i QUIT?<<On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Tom Ed
5441+ 08/07 John Myers         Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-05.txt and CR/LF<<P
5442+ 08/08 Glenn Anderson     Re: Why MUST i QUIT?<<>In reality, the server mu
5443+ 08/07 Russ Allbery       Re: Why MUST i QUIT?<<Chris Newman <Chris.Newman
5444+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Why MUST i QUIT?<<Chris Newman writes: > The
5445+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  spaces before arguments<<821 requires that the a
5446+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-08 case confusion<<The good news: smtpup
5447+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  code 571?<<Existing MTAs (e.g., sendmail, qmail,
5448+ 08/08 John C Klensin     Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5449+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  821bis ipv6 syntax<<821bis seems to allow HELO [
5450+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  minimum quoting of addresses<<821bis: ``... the 
5451+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  EXPN response format
5454+ 08/08 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-08 case confusion<<On Sat, 08 Aug 19
5455+ 08/08 John C Klensin     Re: Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5456+ 08/08 John C Klensin     Re: spaces before arguments<<On Sat, 08 Aug 1998
5457+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  another unauthorized syntax-check requirement<<s
5458+ 08/08 "Randall S. Winch  Re: Call for Concensus on Recent issues (4.5.3)<
5459+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  250\r\n servers?<<RFC 821 states clearly that th
5460+ 08/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<<Typ
5461+ 08/08 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5462+ 08/08 Keith Moore        Re: EXPN response format<<> From 821bis: > > ...
5463+ 08/08 Keith Moore        Re: 250\r\n servers?<<> smtpupd-08 says unambigu
5464+ 08/08 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5465+ 08/09 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5466+ 08/09 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: 821bis ipv6 syntax<<> 821bis seems to allow 
5467+ 08/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5468+ 08/09 Robert Elz         Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5469+ 08/09 Robert Elz         Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5470+ 08/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5471+ 08/09 Robert Elz         Re: another unauthorized syntax-check requiremen
5472+ 08/10 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5473+ 08/10 Harald Tveit Alve  ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<As the ABNF
5474+ 08/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: code 571?<<One final note: According to Pete
5475+ 08/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5476+ 08/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Internet mail reference pages<<I've put together
5477+ 08/10 Pete Resnick       Re: code 571?<<On 8/10/98 at 2:57 PM +0000, D. J
5478+ 08/10 Pete Resnick       Minor msg-fmt-05 questions<<Two small things: 1.
5479+ 08/10 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<IMHO, a
5480+ 08/10 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5481+ 08/10 Keith Moore        Re: code 571?<<I don't think it's the job of the
5482+ 08/11 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<At 03:4
5483+ 08/11 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<At 06:2
5484+ 08/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: code 571?<<Pete Resnick writes: > But my und
5485+ 08/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-08 discourages correct POP handling<
5486+ 08/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: code 571?<<``Interoperability problems have 
5487+ 08/11 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<At 18:2
5488+ 08/11 Pete Resnick       Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<On 8/11
5489+ 08/11 Pete Resnick       Re: code 571?<<On 8/11/98 at 6:03 AM +0000, D. J
5490+ 08/11 Keith Moore        Re: code 571?<<> ``Interoperability problems hav
5491+ 08/11 Keith Moore        Re: code 571?<<> Isn't this the "as if" principl
5492+ 08/11 Chris Newman       Re: Comments on 'draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5493+ 08/11 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<> >pros
5494+ 08/11 Chris Newman       Re: code 571?<<If we keep 571 in the spec, we sh
5495+ 08/11 Chris Newman       Proposed Agenda, take 2<<Here is a revised propo
5496+ 08/12 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF issue: Multi-line <prose-val>?<<At 04:0
5497+ 08/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  serious VRFY ambiguity<<People have been taking 
5498+ 08/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  VRFY in EHLO responses<<smtpupd-08 says about VR
5499+ 08/13 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Wed, 12 Aug 1998,
5500+ 08/13 Dave Sill          Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<DRUMS WG Chair <Chri
5501+ 08/13 WJCarpenter        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<de5> Once again, I m
5502+ 08/13 Russ Allbery       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<I brought this issue
5503+ 08/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<DRUMS WG Chair write
5504+ 08/13 "Vaudreuil, Greg   RE: serious VRFY ambiguity<<If we were to reopen
5505+ 08/13 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Aug 13, 10:00pm, 
5506+ 08/14 Philip Hazel       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<For the record: I ha
5507+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  VRFY history and ``consensus''<<DRUMS WG Chair w
5508+ 08/14 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> >So I'd interpret 
5509+ 08/15 Robert Elz         Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Personally, I don't 
5510+ 08/14 Philip Hazel       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Sat, 15 Aug 1998,
5511+ 08/14 Peter Sylvester    Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> > > I want to be a
5512+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Keith Moore writes: 
5513+ 08/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Robert Elz writes: >
5514+ 08/14 "Randall S. Winch  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Thu, 13 Aug 1998,
5515+ 08/14 Philip Hazel       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Fri 14 Aug, Peter
5516+ 08/14 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> > I can't tell by 
5517+ 08/14 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> : At the June 1996
5518+ 08/14 Russ Allbery       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Robert Elz <kre@munn
5519+ 08/14 Russ Allbery       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Philip Hazel <ph10@c
5520+ 08/14 Dan Wing           Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<To add to the argume
5521+ 08/15 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Here's an attempt to
5522+ 08/15 John C Klensin     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 
5523+ 08/15 John C Klensin     Re: code 571?<<On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:35:00 -040
5524+ 08/15 Norbert Bollow     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<I really like Keith'
5525+ 08/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Randall S. Wincheste
5526+ 08/17 Antony Bowesman    Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Applogies for any du
5527+ 08/17 John C Klensin     Re: code 571?<<On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:18:07 -070
5528+ 08/17 Dave Sill          Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Keith Moore <moore@c
5529+ 08/17 Dave Sill          Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Keith Moore <moore@c
5530+ 08/17 Antony Bowesman    Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<John C Klensin wrote
5532+ 08/17 Norbert Bollow     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Dave Sill wrote: > >
5533+ 08/18 Robert Elz         Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Date: Mon, 17 Aug 19
5534+ 08/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: code 571?<<John C Klensin writes: > 571 was 
5535+ 08/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Norbert Bollow write
5536+ 08/17 Dave Sill          Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Robert Elz <kre@munn
5537+ 08/17 "Randall S. Winch  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Fri, 14 Aug 1998,
5538+ 08/17 Chris Newman       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On Mon, 17 Aug 1998,
5539+ 08/17 Keith Moore        mail recipient capabilities BOF next week<<This 
5540+ 08/17 Pete Resnick       Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<On 8/17/98 at 11:15 
5541+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> From section 3.5.3
5542+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> >p.s. I personally
5543+ 08/17 Pete Resnick       Semantics of WSP<<Someone wrote to me privately 
5544+ 08/17 Chris Newman       Re: code 571?<<On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, John C Klens
5545+ 08/17 DRUMS WG Chair     VRFY debate at IETF<<It is clear there are a lot
5546+ 08/18 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 
5547+ 08/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<Chris Newman writes:
5548+ 08/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<DRUMS WG Chair writes: 
5549+ 08/17 Randall Gellens    Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<>Why should there be
5550+ 08/18 Norbert Bollow     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<> True, but VRFY won
5551+ 08/18 Norbert Bollow     Re: serious VRFY ambiguity<<D. J. Bernstein <djb
5552+ 08/18 John C Klensin     Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:
5553+ 08/18 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<John C Klensin <klensin
5554+ 08/18 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<John C Klensin <klensin
5555+ 08/18 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<> (1) If at least 3 peo
5556+ 08/18 Chris Newman       Mailrev BOF<<Here is a BOF which is likely to be
5557+ 08/18 "Randall S. Winch  Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<1) I do not mind a MUST
5558+ 08/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  DRUMS management versus implementors<<This is a 
5559+ 08/18 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Dan, Y
5560+ 08/18 Dave Sill          Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<shelne
5561+ 08/18 Patrik =?iso-8859  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<At 19.
5562+ 08/18 Valdis.Kletnieks@  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<--==_E
5563+ 08/18 Jos Backus         Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<On Tue
5564+ 08/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Dave S
5565+ 08/18 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Jos Ba
5566+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Jos Ba
5567+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     VRFY discussion<<Jos Backus <Jos.Backus@nl.origi
5568+ 08/18 Dave Crocker       Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Dave, 
5569+ 08/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Mailrev BOF<<Here's one implementor's brief 
5570+ 08/18 Chris Newman       Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<I invi
5571+ 08/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<The pu
5572+ 08/19 Antony Bowesman    Re: VRFY debate at IETF<<Randall S. Winchester w
5573+ 08/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow writes: > If
5574+ 08/19 Keith Moore        Re: VRFY discussion<<> You seem to be missing th
5575+ 08/19 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY discussion<<Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:4
5576+ 08/19 Keith Moore        Re: VRFY discussion<<> If you really want to kno
5577+ 08/19 Jos Backus         Re: VRFY discussion<<On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 12:
5578+ 08/19 Jos Backus         Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<On Tue
5579+ 08/19 Brian Stafford     Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<All, I
5580+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.e
5581+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.
5582+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<Jos Backus <Jos.Backus@nl.o
5583+ 08/19 Dave Sill          Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<"Perry
5584+ 08/19 Mark Delany        Re: VRFY discussion<<>a) By making it very clear
5585+ 08/19 Dave Crocker       Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<At 10:
5586+ 08/19 Brian Stafford     Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Dave S
5587+ 08/19 "Randall S. Winch  Re: VRFY discussion<<On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Norber
5588+ 08/19 Dave Sill          Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Brian 
5589+ 08/19 Jos Backus         Re: VRFY discussion<<On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 04:
5590+ 08/19 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<"Randall S. Winchester" <rs
5591+ 08/19 Brian Stafford     Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Dave S
5592+ 08/19 Peter Sylvester    Re: VRFY discussion<<> > What the strong interpe
5593+ 08/19 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoa
5594+ 08/19 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoa
5595+ 08/19 Chris Newman       Re: Semantics of WSP<<Shame this important messa
5596+ 08/19 Pete Resnick       Minor msg-fmt-05 questions [repost]<<[I know eve
5597+ 08/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow writes: > Wh
5598+ 08/19 dave@wildbear.on.  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<At 10:
5599+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.
5600+ 08/20 Antony Bowesman    Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow wrote: > > i
5601+ 08/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<Brian 
5602+ 08/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Semantics of WSP<<Chris Newman writes: > How
5603+ 08/19 Keith Moore        Re: VRFY discussion<<> And why is it the busines
5604+ 08/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow writes: > If
5605+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     VRFY clarification - Revised proposed text<<Gree
5606+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     VRFY clarification - Revised alternative text<<H
5607+ 08/19 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: Semantics of WSP<<> However, a "CRLF WSP" se
5608+ 08/19 Dan Wing           Re: VRFY discussion<<>If the consensus of this W
5609+ 08/19 Pete Resnick       Re: Semantics of WSP<<On 8/19/98 at 7:12 PM -070
5610+ 08/20 Antony Bowesman    Re: VRFY clarification - Revised proposed text<<
5611+ 08/19 Dave Crocker       Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<At 07:
5612+ 08/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<dave@w
5613+ 08/19 Dave Crocker       Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<At 01:
5614+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.
5615+ 08/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow writes: > th
5616+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> 
5617+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY clarification - Revised proposed text<<
5618+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.
5619+ 08/20 Antony Bowesman    Re: VRFY clarification - Revised proposed text<<
5620+ 08/19 Dan Wing           Re: VRFY discussion<<>> > If implemented in a se
5621+ 08/20 Robert Elz         Re: Minor msg-fmt-05 questions [repost]<<Date: W
5622+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<Dan Wing <dwing@Cisco.COM> 
5623+ 08/20 Norbert Bollow     VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<I have contributed he
5624+ 08/20 Patrik =?iso-8859  Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<The Wo
5625+ 08/20 Dan Wing           advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<draf
5626+ 08/20 Dan Wing           VRFY before MAIL FROM + RCPT TO<<In draft-ietf-d
5627+ 08/20 Graham Klyne       Re: VRFY discussion<<At 19:17 19/08/98 -0700, Da
5628+ 08/21 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY before MAIL FROM + RCPT TO<<Date: Thu, 
5629+ 08/20 Dan Wing           VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08.txt
5630+ 08/20 "Randall S. Winch  Re: VRFY before MAIL FROM + RCPT TO<<On Fri, 21 
5631+ 08/20 Keith Moore        Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5632+ 08/20 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: DRUMS management versus implementors<<The ch
5633+ 08/20 "Randall S. Winch  Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5634+ 08/20 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Norbert Bollow <n
5635+ 08/20 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5636+ 08/20 Chris Newman       Re: Semantics of WSP<<On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Pete 
5637+ 08/20 Dan Wing           Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<> * It is not tru
5638+ 08/20 Chris Newman       Re: Minor msg-fmt-05 questions [repost]<<On Wed,
5639+ 08/21 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Date: 20 Aug 1998
5640+ 08/21 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<I wrote: : * It i
5641+ 08/21 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Robert Elz <kre@m
5642+ 08/21 Peter Sylvester    Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<> Date: 20 Aug 19
5643+ 08/21 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Date: Fri, 21 Aug
5644+ 08/21 Dave Sill          Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoa
5645+ 08/21 Norbert Bollow     Re: VRFY discussion<<Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.orn
5646+ 08/21 Keith Moore        Re: VRFY discussion<<> The fact is: VRFY is not 
5647+ 08/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5648+ 08/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion<<Norbert Bollow writes: > Ex
5649+ 08/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<``straw man 3 a w
5650+ 08/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Robert Elz writes
5651+ 08/21 Chris Newman       Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5652+ 08/21 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<"D. J. Bernstein"
5653+ 08/21 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5654+ 08/21 Dan Wing           Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5655+ 08/21 Dan Wing           Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5656+ 08/21 Russ Allbery       Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5657+ 08/21 Chris Newman       Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5658+ 08/21 Dan Wing           Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5659+ 08/21 Dave Crocker       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<At 06:40 PM 8/21/
5660+ 08/21 Chris Newman       Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5661+ 08/21 Chris Newman       Re: advertising EXPN and VRFY in EHLO response<<
5662+ 08/22 John C Klensin     Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Fri, 21 Aug 19
5663+ 08/22 Philip Hazel       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Sat 22 Aug, Jo
5664+ 08/23 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Date: Sat, 22 Aug
5665+ 08/22 Philip Hazel       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Sat 22 Aug, Ro
5666+ 08/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<``ad hominem 2 at
5667+ 08/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Philip Hazel writ
5668+ 08/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  What is an SMTP server?<<Norbert Bollow writes: 
5669+ 08/22 John C Klensin     Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Sat, 22 Aug 19
5670+ 08/22 WJCarpenter        Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<klensin> If IETF 
5671+ 08/22 WJCarpenter        Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<ph10> As an extre
5672+ 08/22 Randall Gellens    Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<At 2:51 AM -0700 
5673+ 08/23 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: VRFY wording for draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-08
5674+ 08/24 Philip Hazel       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Sat, 22 Aug 19
5675+ 08/24 Philip Hazel       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<On Sat, 22 Aug 19
5676+ 08/25 Robert Elz         Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Date: Mon, 24 Aug
5677+ 08/24 "Edward Hibbert"   IP addresses in MX records<<Forgive me if this i
5678+ 08/24 Philip Hazel       Re: IP addresses in MX records<<On 24 Aug 1998, 
5679+ 08/24 Pete Resnick       field names<<Steve Dorner asked me about section
5680+ 08/24 Randall Gellens    Re: field names<<We could restrict the character
5681+ 08/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  greeting message with NO UCE<<Under a proposed f
5682+ 08/25 Russ Allbery       Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY<<Robert Elz <kre@m
5683+ 08/25 Robert Elz         Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<Date: 25 Aug 1
5684+ 08/25 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<At 02:11 AM 8/
5685+ 08/25 jack@wildbear.on.  Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<At 02:11 AM 8/
5686+ 08/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  QUIT summary<<To make sure that the crucial poin
5687+ 08/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  years before 1900<<msg-fmt-05: ``The year is any
5688+ 08/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<See http://www
5689+ 08/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: field names<<Pete Resnick writes: > it decid
5690+ 08/26 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<Paul Hoffman w
5691+ 08/26 israel@cbiinterne  All Christians Are "Israelites"<<To Whom It May 
5692+ 08/26 Brian Stafford     Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<Another observ
5693+ 08/26 Dave Crocker       SMTP banner<<At 07:00 PM 8/25/98 +1000, Robert E
5694+ 08/26 "Dino"             Re: SMTP banner<<-----Original Message----- From
5695+ 08/27 Glenn Anderson     Re: greeting message with NO UCE<<> I do conside
5696+ 08/27 Antony Bowesman    Re: field names<<D. J. Bernstein wrote: > > Pete
5697+ 08/26 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: SMTP banner<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenb
5698+ 08/26 Jacob Palme        Authentication through mail queries<<I mentioned
5699+ 08/27 Jacob Palme        Re: Authentication through mail queries<<At 21.5
5700+ 08/27 Brian Stafford     Re: SMTP banner<<>From an implementor's perspect
5701+ 08/26 Pete Resnick       Re: years before 1900<<On 8/25/98 at 5:50 PM +00
5702+ 08/27 Jacob Palme        Mail header registry mailing list<<Chris propose
5703+ 08/29 Paul Hoffman / IM  New mailing list for discussing mail header regi
5704+ 08/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  Garbage from AOL's new mailer<<Spotted today: Re
5705+ 09/15 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<Chris Newman <C
5706+ 09/15 Dave Crocker       Re: Moving ABNF to Draft Status<<At 12:09 PM 9/1
5707+ 09/15 nextmm@bigplanet.  Introducing BIG PLANET!<<_______________________
5708+ 09/23 Eliot Lear         i call your attention to...<<... draft-ietf-mmus
5709+ 09/23 Randall Gellens    Re: i call your attention to...<<I'm not sure th
5710+ 09/24 Paul Hoffman / IM  Minutes from Chicago?<<I was unable to have fun 
5711+ 09/28 "Barry Leiba"      RE: Minutes from Chicago?<<Paul Hoffman asks > W
5712+ 09/28 "Barry Leiba"      Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Minutes from D
5713+ 09/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Two additi
5714+ 09/28 Chris Newman       Re: i call your attention to...<<On Wed, 23 Sep 
5715+ 09/28 Eliot Lear         Re: i call your attention to...<<In a followup n
5716+ 09/30 Robert Elz         Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Date: Mon,
5717+ 09/30 "Barry Leiba"      RE: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<> * There 
5718+ 10/01 Eliot Lear         Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Robert Elz
5719+ 10/02 Robert Elz         Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Date: Thu,
5720+ 10/01 Dan Kohn           Edits for draft-ietf-drums-abnf-v2-00.txt<<Dave,
5721+ 10/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<Barry Leib
5722+ 10/13 Eliot Lear         Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<"D. J. Ber
5723+ 10/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Minutes from DRUMS WG, 42nd IETF<<> > > Curr
5724+ 10/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  syntax errors<<Everyone agrees that it is a viol
5726+ 10/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  mailing list unreliable again<<I sent two messag
5727+ 10/20 Keith Moore        Dan's complaint (was Re: mailing list unreliable
5728+ 10/20 Eliot Lear         Re: syntax errors<<"D. J. Bernstein" wrote: > Yo
5729+ 10/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Eliot Lear writes: > Is it yo
5730+ 10/24 Robert Elz         Re: syntax errors<<Date: 23 Oct 1998 06:03:27 -0
5731+ 10/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Robert Elz writes: > Yes, the
5732+ 10/25 Robert Elz         Re: syntax errors<<Date: 24 Oct 1998 05:25:07 -0
5733+ 10/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Robert Elz writes: > Last, al
5734+ 10/25 Kai Henningsen     Re: syntax errors<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz
5735+ 10/26 Robert Elz         Re: syntax errors<<Date: 24 Oct 1998 19:41:00 -0
5736+ 10/26 Robert Elz         Re: syntax errors<<Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 06:29:
5737+ 10/25 Paul Hoffman / IM  Status of the drafts?<<It's been two months sinc
5738+ 10/26 Norbert Bollow     Re: Status of the drafts?<<> It's been two month
5739+ 10/26 John C Klensin     Re: Status of the drafts?<<On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 1
5740+ 10/27 Norbert Bollow     Re: Status of the drafts?<<> > I still think it 
5741+ 10/31 scj2@gs4.revnet.c  ISM Corp has acquired 4.7 mill to begin producti
5742+ 11/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Robert Elz writes: > by being
5743+ 11/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Robert Elz writes: > So exact
5744+ 11/01 Dan Kohn           The First E-Mail Message (http://www.pretext.com
5745+ 11/02 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: syntax errors<<"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.
5746+ 11/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<mea@nic.funet.fi writes: > Ha
5747+ 11/02 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: syntax errors<<<djb@cr.yp.to> writes: ... > 
5748+ 11/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<mea@nic.funet.fi writes: > I 
5749+ 11/04 Peter Koch         (bad) i18n of "Re:" usage in "Subject:"<<There a
5750+ 11/05 Simon Lyall        Re: (bad) i18n of "Re:" usage in "Subject:"<<It 
5751+ 11/04 Pete Resnick       In-Reply-To<<822 allows *(phrase/msg-id) in both
5752+ 11/04 Randall Gellens    Re: syntax errors<<>100-RCPT limit in RFC 821 >m
5753+ 11/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: syntax errors<<Randall Gellens writes: > Imp
5754+ 11/05 Robert Elz         Re: syntax errors<<Date: 5 Nov 1998 00:35:40 -00
5755+ 11/05 Maurizio Codogno   Re: In-Reply-To<<Pete: :822 allows *(phrase/msg-
5756+ 11/05 Lars-Johan Liman   Re: (bad) i18n of "Re:" usage in "Subject:"<<pk@
5757+ 11/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  how is Re actually used?<<Simon Lyall writes: > 
5758+ 11/05 "Larry Osterman (  RE: how is Re actually used?<<Exchange server, d
5759+ 11/06 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: In-Reply-To<<Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.c
5760+ 11/07 Mark Delany        Re: how is Re actually used?<<>If you have infor
5761+ 11/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: how is Re actually used?<<larryo@exchange.mi
5762+ 11/09 Jamie Zawinski     Re: how is Re actually used?<<> If you have info
5763+ 11/11 Dave Crocker       Re: In-Reply-To<<At 03:41 PM 11/4/98 -0600, Pete
5764+ 11/11 Jamie Zawinski     Re: In-Reply-To<<Dave Crocker wrote: > > For som
5765+ 11/11 Dave Crocker       Re: In-Reply-To<<At 01:51 AM 11/11/98 -0800, Jam
5766+ 11/11 Jamie Zawinski     Re: In-Reply-To<<Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 01:5
5767+ 11/12 Antony Bowesman    Re: how is Re actually used?<<Kai Henningsen wro
5768+ 11/12 Dave Crocker       Re: In-Reply-To<<At 12:54 PM 11/11/98 -0800, Jam
5769+ 11/12 Robert Elz         Re: In-Reply-To<<Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:54:17
5770+ 11/14 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: In-Reply-To<<Jamie Zawinski <jwz@mozilla.org
5771+ 11/18 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-06.txt posted<<As is my
5772+ 11/19 Dave Crocker       draft-ietf-drums-abnf-09.txt posted<<There are s
5773+ 11/19 Jacob Palme        Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-06.txt posted<<At 2
5774+ 11/19 915604@candseek.c  JOBOP Systems Engineer<<Since your email address
5775+ 11/19 Tony Hansen        Is the final line of a message required to have 
5776+ 11/20 Pete Resnick       Re: Is the final line of a message required to h
5777+ 11/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Is the final line of a message required to h
5778+ 11/23 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-09.txt posted<<Believe
5779+ 11/23 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-abnf-v2-01.txt<<--Ne
5780+ 11/24 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-06.txt<<--Ne
5781+ 11/25 Dave Crocker       Re: draft-ietf-drums-abnf-09.txt posted<<At 09:0
5782+ 11/29 John C Klensin     821bis, draft proto-09<<--Boundary_(ID_R9wPGSCkx
5783+ 11/30 DRUMS WG Chair     WG Last Call: ABNF to Draft Standard<<On Mon, 23
5784+ 12/01 Lee Thompson       Comments Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<Section 3.3
5785+ 12/02 Antony Bowesman    Re: Comments Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<Lee Tho
5786+ 12/01 Dan Kohn           RE: WG Last Call: ABNF to Draft Standard<<Here a
5787+ 12/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<As far as I can see,
5788+ 12/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Comments Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<Lee Tho
5789+ 12/02 John Beck          LDAP schema BOF<<Hopefully this is of general in
5790+ 12/02 Dave Crocker       RE: WG Last Call: ABNF to Draft Standard<<At 05:
5791+ 12/03 Jack De Winter     Re: LDAP schema BOF<<At 06:14 PM 12/2/98 -0800, 
5792+ 12/03 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<At 11:43 AM 11/29/98
5793+ 12/03 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<On Dec 3, 10:08am, P
5794+ 12/03 John Beck          Re: LDAP schema BOF<<John> We will be holding a 
5795+ 12/03 John Beck          Re: LDAP schema BOF<<John> We will be holding a 
5796+ 12/04 John Beck          Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<klensin> ... I'm pos
5797+ 12/04 John C Klensin     Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 
5798+ 12/07 John C Klensin     Comments Re: 821bis, draft proto-09<<On Tue, 01 
5799+ 12/07 John C Klensin     821bis, draft proto-09b<<--Boundary_(ID_ann92FIL
5800+ 12/07 Jeff Hodges        Re: [Fwd: LDAP schema BOF]<<John Beck said: > Th
5801+ 12/08 Matti Aarnio       smtpupd-09b.txt<<As John has weird problems at p
5802+ 12/08 Jacob Palme        Message-ID persistence in gateways<<draft-ietf-d
5803+ 12/08 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID persistence in gateways<<On 12/8/
5804+ 12/08 Russ Allbery       Re: Message-ID persistence in gateways<<Pete Res
5805+ 12/09 Tony Hansen        Re: Message-ID persistence in gateways<<Jacob Pa
5806+ 12/09 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID persistence in gateways<<At 19.03
5807+ 12/09 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID persistence in gateways<<On 12/9/
5808+ 12/09 Randall Gellens    Suggested Clarification to Sect 5 last Para<<> I
5809+ 12/09 Pete Resnick       New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persistence
5810+ 12/10 Antony Bowesman    Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5811+ 12/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  another example of case dependence<<Spotted in a
5812+ 12/09 Chris Newman       WG last call on Message format draft
5814+ 12/10 Pete Resnick       Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5815+ 12/11 Jacob Palme        Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5816+ 12/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: New Message-ID Note<<jpalme@dsv.su.se (Jacob
5817+ 12/13 Simon Lyall        Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5818+ 12/13 Antony Bowesman    Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5819+ 12/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: Suggested Clarification to Sect 5 last Para<
5820+ 12/13 John C Klensin     Re: Suggested Clarification to Sect 5 last Para<
5821+ 12/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Suggested Clarification to Sect 5 last Para<
5822+ 12/13 Jeff Hodges        home of laser distribution list?<<John, Where's 
5823+ 12/13 John Beck          Re: home of laser distribution list?<<Jeff> Wher
5824+ 12/16 Jacob Palme        Re: New Message-ID Note (Was: Message-ID persist
5825+ 12/16 "David Lemson (Ex  address-type<<I'm attempting to find the registr
5826+ 12/16 Chris Newman       DRUMS working group meeting minutes<<This messag
5827+ 12/16 Jacob Palme        "Re: " and "An: "<<In the drums meeting in Orlan
5828+ 12/18 Jacob Palme        Re: DRUMS working group meeting minutes<<At 19.2
5829+ 12/17 Pete Resnick       Re: DRUMS working group meeting minutes<<On 12/1
5830+ 12/18 Randall Gellens    Re: DRUMS working group meeting minutes<<At 10:1
5831+ 12/19 Kai Henningsen     Re: DRUMS working group meeting minutes<<randy@q
5832+ 12/19 Jacob Palme        Use of "Re: " (was DRUMS working group meeting m
5833+ 12/19 Pete Resnick       Re: Use of "Re: " (was DRUMS working group meeti
5834+ 12/19 John Beck          Re: Use of "Re: " (was DRUMS working group meeti
5835+ 12/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: Use of "Re: " (was DRUMS working group meeti
5836+ 01/05 Wolfgang Segmulle  Use of "Re: "<<--Part9901051139.B Content-Type: 
5837+ 01/05 Randall Gellens    Re: Use of "Re: "<<At 11:39 AM -0500 1/5/99, Wol
5838+ 01/06 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-09.txt<<--Ne
5839+ 01/07 Alexey Melnikov    Re: Use of "Re: "<<Randall Gellens wrote: > At 1
5840+ 01/07 Norbert Bollow     Re: Use of "Re: "<<Wolfgang Segmuller <whs@watso
5841+ 01/07 Chris Newman       Re: Use of "Re: "<<On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Norbert B
5842+ 01/08 Jacob Palme        Ignore parameters on all headers?<<This is proba
5843+ 01/08 Pete Resnick       Message Format WG Last Call items<<Well, today i
5844+ 01/09 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt posted<<This is 
5845+ 01/12 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt<<--Ne
5846+ 01/12 Keith Moore        Re: Ignore parameters on all headers?<<> This is
5847+ 01/17 Jamie Zawinski     References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<Sect
5848+ 01/18 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
5849+ 01/19 "Edward Hibbert"   RFC 1845<<Can someone tell me the relationship b
5850+ 01/20 Robert Elz         Re: RFC 1845<<Date: 19 Jan 1999 20:01:01 UT From
5851+ 01/25 Chris Newman       SMTP draft -09 WG last call<<This is a WG last c
5852+ 01/28 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
5853+ 01/29 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
5854+ 01/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
5855+ 01/28 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
5856+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 prohibits dumb clients<<Section 5 of 
5857+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 allows multi-parameter HELO<<[ HELO w
5858+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still requires waiting for the QUIT r
5859+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still prohibits disk failures<<If an 
5860+ 01/29 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-09 still prohibits disk failures<<On
5861+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 date errors<<> second of the minute i
5862+ 01/29 Eliot Lear         Re: smtpupd-09 prohibits dumb clients<<There is 
5863+ 01/29 Tony Hansen        Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<D. J. Bernstein wrot
5864+ 01/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<"D. J. Bernstein" <d
5865+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still discourages HELO<<> clients SHO
5866+ 01/29 Maurizio Codogno   Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Perry E. Metzger: :"
5867+ 01/29 Paul Overell       Re: smtpupd-09 prohibits dumb clients<<In articl
5868+ 01/29 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<At 12:52 PM 1/29/99 
5869+ 01/29 Dave Sill          Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Paul Hoffman / IMC <
5870+ 01/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Paul Hoffman / IMC <
5871+ 01/29 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Dave Sill <de5@sws5.
5872+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 prohibits firewalls and home networks
5873+ 01/29 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 prohibits uuencode, cron mail, et al.
5874+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 and ``destinations''<<> Fully-capable
5875+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 still discourages HELO<<Question 
5876+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 prohibits dumb clients<<Eliot Lea
5877+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still prohibits double-bounces<<Moder
5878+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 requires useless EHLO responses<<Fact
5879+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code inspecti
5880+ 01/30 Brad Knowles       Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5881+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 and VRFY<<Many hosts always return 25
5882+ 01/30 "Nathaniel S. Bor  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Excerpts from bulk.i
5883+ 01/30 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 
5884+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 and uppercase addresses<<> A few SMTP
5885+ 01/30 Brad Knowles       Re: smtpupd-09 and VRFY<<On Sat, Jan 30, 1999, D
5886+ 01/30 John Beck          Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5887+ 01/30 John C Klensin     editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Status rep
5889+ 01/30 John C Klensin     stripped-down client configuration (Address, MX 
5890+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Perry E. Metzger wri
5891+ 01/23 Tony Hansen        Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5893+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still requires ``stopping trivial loo
5894+ 01/30 Brad Knowles       Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5895+ 01/30 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-09 and uppercase addresses<<On Sat, 
5896+ 01/30 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-09 prohibits uuencode, cron mail, et
5897+ 01/30 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5898+ 01/30 John Beck          Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5899+ 01/30 Brad Knowles       Re(2): smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code i
5900+ 01/30 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5901+ 01/31 Robert Elz         Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5902+ 01/30 Brad Knowles       Re(2): stripped-down client configuration (Addre
5903+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 still discourages HELO<<> Dan, if
5904+ 01/30 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: smtpupd-09 still requires ``stopping trivial
5905+ 01/30 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5906+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 and ``destinations''<<John C Klen
5907+ 01/30 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: smtpupd-09 requires useless EHLO responses<<
5908+ 01/31 Robert Elz         Re: Re(2): stripped-down client configuration (A
5909+ 01/30 John C Klensin     Re(2): stripped-down client configuration (Addre
5910+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5911+ 01/30 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 prohibits simple EHLO/HELO implementa
5912+ 01/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 and syntax checks<<Of the 50 most com
5913+ 01/30 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5914+ 01/31 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 still discourages correct POP handlin
5915+ 01/31 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5916+ 02/01 Alexey Melnikov    Re: smtpupd-09 still discourages correct POP han
5917+ 02/01 Alexey Melnikov    Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5918+ 02/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5919+ 02/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 prohibits uuencode, cron mail, et
5921+ 02/01 Brad Knowles       Re(4): stripped-down client configuration (Addre
5922+ 02/01 Paul Overell       Re: smtpupd-09 still discourages correct POP han
5923+ 02/01 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-09 still discourages correct POP han
5924+ 02/01 Maurizio Codogno   Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<:From:
5925+ 02/01 Robert Elz         Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Date: 
5926+ 02/01 "Michael Quinlan"  RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<>From:
5927+ 02/01 Alexey Melnikov    Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5928+ 02/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Robert
5929+ 02/01 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5930+ 02/01 Brad Knowles       Re(2): stripped-down client configuration (Addre
5931+ 02/01 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<D J Be
5932+ 02/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<There'
5933+ 02/01 Steve Hole         Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5934+ 02/01 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<D J Be
5935+ 02/02 Brad Knowles       Re(2): editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On 
5936+ 02/02 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: Re(2): editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<
5937+ 02/02 Philip Hazel       Re: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5938+ 02/02 Tony Hansen        Re: smtpupd-09 requires detailed reply code insp
5939+ 02/04 Pete Resnick       Atoms and phrases (Was: UTF-8 in headers)<<I hav
5940+ 02/04 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Atoms and phrases (Was: UTF-8 in headers)<<P
5941+ 02/04 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: Atoms and phrases (Was: UTF-8 in headers)<<P
5942+ 02/05 "Barry Leiba"      RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<> Ther
5943+ 02/05 "Barry Leiba"      RE: stripped-down client configuration (Address,
5944+ 02/05 "D. J. Bernstein"  Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Barry Leiba writes
5945+ 02/05 WJCarpenter        RE: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<djb> A simple 
5946+ 02/06 Alexey Melnikov    Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<"D. J. Bernste
5947+ 02/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Alexey Melniko
5948+ 02/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  smtpupd-09 allows multi-parameter HELO<<80 messa
5949+ 02/07 Graham Klyne       Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<At 21:41 05/02
5950+ 02/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<The theory of 
5951+ 02/08 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Date: 7 Feb 19
5952+ 02/07 Eliot Lear         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<I agree with R
5953+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Eliot Lear wri
5954+ 02/07 Eliot Lear         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<The problem, D
5955+ 02/07 Chris Newman       Re: SMTP draft -09 WG last call<<On Mon, 25 Jan 
5956+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Eliot Lear wri
5957+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Robert Elz wri
5958+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  More DRUMS procedural problems<<John Klensin's e
5959+ 02/08 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Date: 8 Feb 19
5960+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Robert Elz wri
5961+ 02/08 Brad Knowles       Re(2): Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<On Mon, Feb
5962+ 02/08 Keith Moore        Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<> John Klens
5963+ 02/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Brad Knowles w
5964+ 02/09 Robert Elz         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Date: 8 Feb 19
5965+ 02/08 Eliot Lear         Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<If you honestl
5966+ 02/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Syntax extensions in RFC 821<<Eliot Lear wri
5967+ 02/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<It seems
5968+ 02/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 0
5969+ 02/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Kai 
5970+ 02/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 0
5971+ 02/11 John C Klensin     Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<On Mon, 08 F
5972+ 02/11 John C Klensin     Re: RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On
5973+ 02/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Dave
5974+ 02/12 Dave Crocker       Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<John, You ar
5975+ 02/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 0
5976+ 02/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Dave
5977+ 02/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<John C Klens
5978+ 02/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 0
5981+ 02/12 Brad Knowles       Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<On Thu, Feb 
5983+ 02/12 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Brad
5984+ 02/12 Brad Knowles       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Fri
5985+ 02/12 Philip Hazel       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Fri
5986+ 02/12 Brad Knowles       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Fri
5987+ 02/12 Keith Moore        Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<> Wh
5988+ 02/12 Keith Moore        Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<> C'
5989+ 02/12 John C Klensin     Re: More DRUMS procedural problems<<On Fri, 12 F
5990+ 02/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Keit
5991+ 02/13 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 0
5992+ 02/14 Robert Elz         Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<Date
5993+ 02/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<It h
5994+ 02/14 Nick_Shelness/SSW  Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<For 
5995+ 02/14 Dave Crocker       Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<At 1
5996+ 02/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: Who wanted to eliminate the tokenizer?<<djb@
5997+ 02/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  A blast from the past<<John Klensin, DRUMS maili
5998+ 02/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  DRUMS procedural problems: a case study<<Dave Cr
5999+ 02/15 Brad Knowles       Re: DRUMS procedural problems: a case study<<On 
6000+ 02/15 Philip Hazel       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Fri
6001+ 02/15 John C Klensin     Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Mon
6002+ 02/15 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<> ----
6003+ 02/15 "Larry Osterman (  RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<I thin
6004+ 02/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Larry 
6005+ 02/16 Tim DiLauro        Re: DRUMS procedural problems: a case study<<On 
6006+ 02/16 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Larry 
6007+ 02/16 "Larry Osterman (  RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<I prob
6008+ 02/16 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<> ----
6009+ 02/16 "Larry Osterman (  RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Person
6010+ 02/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<My mai
6011+ 02/16 "Larry Osterman (  RE: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<I knew
6012+ 02/17 Brad Knowles       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Tue
6013+ 02/17 Brad Knowles       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Mon
6014+ 02/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Larry 
6015+ 02/16 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Brad K
6016+ 02/16 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Brad K
6017+ 02/17 John C Klensin     Language about unusual, configurable, behavior (
6018+ 02/17 John C Klensin     Silly analogy on alternate features/ configurati
6019+ 02/17 Dave Crocker       Re: A blast from the past<<At 02:40 AM 2/15/99 +
6020+ 02/17 Ofer Inbar         Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Russ A
6021+ 02/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<A few 
6022+ 02/17 Pete Resnick       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On 2/1
6023+ 02/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Pete R
6024+ 02/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: A blast from the past<<Klensin's stated edit
6025+ 02/17 John C Klensin     Re: Silly analogy on alternate features/ configu
6026+ 02/18 Dave Crocker       Re: A blast from the past<<At 12:36 AM 2/18/99 +
6027+ 02/18 Philip Hazel       Re: Silly analogy on alternate features/ configu
6028+ 02/18 Graham Klyne       To MX or not to MX?<<At 21:26 17/02/99 -0500, Jo
6029+ 02/18 The IESG           Last Call: Internet Message Format Standard to P
6030+ 02/18 Kai Henningsen     Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<larryo
6031+ 02/18 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6032+ 02/18 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6033+ 02/18 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6034+ 02/18 Ofer Inbar         Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<"D. J.
6035+ 02/18 Ofer Inbar         Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Philip
6036+ 02/18 John C Klensin     Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:
6037+ 02/19 Robert Elz         Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 
6038+ 02/19 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6039+ 02/19 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<How ab
6040+ 02/19 Bart Schaefer      Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Jo
6041+ 02/19 Philip Hazel       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On 19 
6042+ 02/17 Philip Hazel       Re: Silly analogy on alternate features/ configu
6043+ 02/18 Philip Hazel       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<On Wed
6044+ 02/19 David Lindes       Re: SMTP session initiation and 554<<Hi John (Kl
6045+ 02/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<djb@cr
6046+ 02/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: SMTP session initiation and 554<<lindes@nets
6047+ 02/20 Kai Henningsen     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6048+ 02/20 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6049+ 02/20 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6050+ 02/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6051+ 02/21 Brad Knowles       Re: SMTP session initiation and 554<<On Sat, Feb
6052+ 02/21 Brad Knowles       Re: Silly analogy on alternate features/ configu
6053+ 02/21 Maurizio Codogno   Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6054+ 02/21 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6055+ 02/21 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6056+ 02/21 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6057+ 02/22 Brad Knowles       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6058+ 02/22 Dave Sill          Re: Silly analogy on alternate features/ configu
6059+ 02/22 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6060+ 02/22 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6061+ 02/22 Keith Moore        a request regarding Last Call comments<<Please d
6062+ 02/23 Dave Crocker       Re: To MX or not to MX?<<At 04:18 PM 2/19/99 +11
6063+ 02/23 Brad Knowles       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6064+ 02/23 Chris Newman       Re: DRUMS procedural problems: a case study<<On 
6065+ 02/23 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6066+ 02/24 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6067+ 02/23 Lee Thompson       Valid Addressing with 821bis<<Under 821bis would
6068+ 02/24 Brad Knowles       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6069+ 02/23 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6070+ 02/24 Brad Knowles       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6071+ 02/23 Russ Allbery       Re: editing status of 821bis, draft -10.<<Kai He
6072+ 02/23 Russ Allbery       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6073+ 02/24 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6074+ 02/24 Brad Knowles       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6075+ 02/24 Russ Allbery       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6076+ 02/24 Jamie Zawinski     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6077+ 02/24 Pete Resnick       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6078+ 02/24 Russ Allbery       Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6079+ 02/24 Graham Klyne       Re: Valid Addressing with 821bis<<At 22:38 23/02
6081+ 02/25 John C Klensin     Re: Valid Addressing with 821bis<<On Wed, 24 Feb
6082+ 02/26 John C Klensin     Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<i. draf
6083+ 02/28 Pete Resnick       Summary of References and In-Reply-To<<The follo
6084+ 03/01 Philip Hazel       Small wording clarification<<Today I had occasio
6085+ 03/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<kle
6087+ 03/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6088+ 03/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: a request regarding Last Call comments<<moor
6089+ 03/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6090+ 03/01 Kai Henningsen     Re: SMTP session initiation and 554<<blk@skynet.
6091+ 03/02 Robert Elz         Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<Dat
6092+ 03/02 Philip Hazel       Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<On 
6093+ 03/02 Graham Klyne       Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<At 
6094+ 03/03 Robert Elz         Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<Dat
6095+ 03/02 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt<<--Ne
6096+ 03/02 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt<<--Ne
6097+ 03/02 Philip Hazel       Re: Editing changes/status 821bis, draft 10<<On 
6098+ 03/02 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6099+ 03/02 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:
6100+ 03/02 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:
6101+ 03/03 Dave Sill          Re: To MX or not to MX?<<"R. Kelley Cook" <kcook
6102+ 03/03 Brad Knowles       Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Tue, Mar 2, 1999, R.
6103+ 03/03 John C Klensin     FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Hi. Kelley sent th
6104+ 03/04 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<John C Klensin
6105+ 03/04 Pete Resnick       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On 3/3/99 at 1
6106+ 03/04 Dave Sill          Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<John C Klensin
6107+ 03/05 Robert Elz         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Date: Wed, 03 
6108+ 03/04 Lee Thompson       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, 05 Mar
6109+ 03/04 Ofer Inbar         Re: preventing loops in bidirectional gateways<<
6110+ 03/04 Philip Hazel       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, 5 Mar 
6111+ 03/04 John C Klensin     Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 04 Mar
6112+ 03/04 Ofer Inbar         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Robert Elz <kr
6113+ 03/04 Brad Knowles       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, Mar 4,
6114+ 03/04 "R. Kelley Cook"   Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:1
6115+ 03/05 John C Klensin     Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Thu, 04 Mar
6116+ 03/05 Pete Resnick       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On 3/5/99 at 1
6117+ 03/05 Philip Hazel       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, 5 Mar 
6118+ 03/05 Robert Elz         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Date: Fri, 5 M
6119+ 03/05 Brad Knowles       Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, Mar 5,
6120+ 03/05 John C Klensin     Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, 05 Mar
6121+ 03/05 John C Klensin     Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<On Fri, 05 Mar
6122+ 03/06 "Randall S. Winch  Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<What is in an 
6123+ 03/06 Robert Elz         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Date: Fri, 05 
6124+ 03/08 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Certainly on a
6125+ 03/08 Ofer Inbar         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Robert Elz <kr
6126+ 03/04 Peter Koch         Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<John Klensin i
6127+ 03/04 Bart Schaefer      Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Pete Resnick w
6128+ 03/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<John C Klensin
6129+ 03/11 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<John C Klensin
6130+ 03/11 Keith Moore        regarding MX records<<My take on MX records: - T
6131+ 03/11 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: regarding MX records<<I like this language. 
6132+ 03/11 John C Klensin     RE: regarding MX records<<One set of questions, 
6133+ 03/12 Brad Knowles       Re: regarding MX records<<On Thu, Mar 11, 1999, 
6134+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: regarding MX records<<> One set of questions
6135+ 03/12 Graham Klyne       Re: regarding MX records<<At 09:22 12/03/99 +010
6136+ 03/12 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: regarding MX records<<I like this language. 
6137+ 03/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Suppose the
6138+ 03/14 Robert Elz         Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Date: 1
6139+ 03/13 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Robert 
6140+ 03/13 "Christian Kuhtz"  RE: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<> Rober
6141+ 03/14 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Right n
6142+ 03/14 Robert Elz         Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Date: 1
6143+ 03/14 Philip Hazel       Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<This di
6144+ 03/14 Jacob Palme        Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<At 20.23 +0100 99-01
6145+ 03/15 Dave Sill          Re: MX is not part of the SMTP protocol<<Robert 
6146+ 03/15 "Nathaniel S. Bor  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<> At 20.23 +0100 99-
6147+ 03/15 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: regarding MX records<<It seems to me that pa
6148+ 03/15 John C Klensin     Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Nathaniel, Let me re
6149+ 03/15 Dan Kohn           RE: smtpupd-09 date errors<<I disagree. The RFC 
6150+ 03/15 Pete Resnick       References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Here's 
6151+ 03/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Dan Kohn <dan@telede
6152+ 03/15 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<I used 4*DIGIT in my
6153+ 03/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Perry E. Metzger wri
6154+ 03/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<"D. J. Bernstein" <d
6155+ 03/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Oh, and as long as I
6156+ 03/15 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Pet
6157+ 02/16 Brad Knowles       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<On 
6158+ 03/16 "Nathaniel S. Bor  Re: smtpupd-09 date errors<<Perry Metzger wrote:
6159+ 03/16 Pete Resnick       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<On 
6160+ 03/16 Paul Overell       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<In 
6161+ 03/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Wha
6162+ 03/16 Dan Wing           Fwd: Microsoft's SMTP service broken/stupid<<The
6163+ 03/16 Dan Wing           draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt, section 4.5.3<<
6164+ 03/16 Dan Wing           Fwd: Microsoft's SMTP service broken/stupid<<The
6165+ 03/16 Pete Resnick       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<On 
6166+ 03/16 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Wha
6167+ 03/16 Paul Overell       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<In 
6168+ 03/17 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Pet
6169+ 03/17 Brad Knowles       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<On 
6170+ 03/12 Philip Hazel       Re: regarding MX records<<On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, K
6171+ 03/17 John C Klensin     Re: regarding MX records<<On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09
6172+ 03/17 Brad Knowles       Re: regarding MX records<<On Fri, Mar 12, 1999, 
6173+ 03/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<Onc
6174+ 02/18 Friendly Soul      Re: A blast from the past<<At 12:36 AM 2/18/99 +
6175+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<klensin@MCI.NE
6176+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: To MX or not to MX?<<blk@skynet.be (Brad Kno
6177+ 03/21 Kai Henningsen     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6178+ 03/22 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6179+ 03/22 Jacob Palme        Optimising mail to many recipients<<Suppose you 
6180+ 03/22 Pete Resnick       Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<<On 
6181+ 03/22 mea@nic.funet.fi   Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<> Suppos
6182+ 03/22 Keith Moore        Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<> Does t
6183+ 03/24 Alan Barrett       Re: To MX or not to MX?<<Kai Henningsen <kaih@kh
6184+ 03/24 Alan Barrett       Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<On Mon, 
6185+ 03/24 Dan Kohn           RE: Optimising mail to many recipients<<On Mon, 
6186+ 03/24 Dave Crocker       RE: Optimising mail to many recipients<<At 01:16
6187+ 03/25 Keith Moore        Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<> This i
6188+ 03/25 Bart Schaefer      Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<(Meta-co
6189+ 03/26 Brad Knowles       Re: Optimising mail to many recipients<<On Thu, 
6190+ 03/26 Jeffrey Streiflin  Legal chars in 821bis<<I've hunted through the d
6191+ 03/26 Pete Resnick       Re: Legal chars in 821bis<<On 3/26/99 at 12:08 P
6192+ 03/29 John C Klensin     Re: Legal chars in 821bis<<On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 1
6193+ 03/30 Randall Gellens    Re: To MX or not to MX?<<At 9:12 PM +0100 3/3/99
6194+ 03/30 Randall Gellens    Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<At 1:41 AM +11
6195+ 03/30 Randall Gellens    Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX?<<>A relay SMTP 
6196+ 04/01 "Perry E. Metzger  [RFC Editor <rfc-ed@ISI.EDU>] RFC 2550 on Y10K a
6198+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: To MX or not to MX?<<apb@iafrica.com (Alan B
6199+ 04/03 Kai Henningsen     Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6200+ 04/04 Robert Elz         Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)<<
6201+ 04/04 Keith Moore        cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<> Only if my filter doesn't
6202+ 04/04 "Randall S. Winch  Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Kei
6203+ 04/04 Keith Moore        Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<> I have set up separat
6204+ 04/05 John C Klensin     Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:
6205+ 04/05 Russ Allbery       Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<John C Klensin <klensin
6206+ 04/05 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<At 11:46 AM 4/5/99 -070
6207+ 04/06 Robert Elz         Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 
6208+ 04/05 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<John C Klensin <klensin
6209+ 04/05 Russ Allbery       Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<Paul Hoffman / IMC <pho
6210+ 04/06 Brad Knowles       Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<On Sun, Apr 4, 1999, Ke
6211+ 04/06 Robert Elz         Re: cs.utk.edu and ORBS<<Date: 05 Apr 1999 15:38
6212+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<I recently g
6213+ 04/08 Brad Knowles       Re: X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<On Thu, 
6214+ 04/08 Jacob Palme        X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<I recently g
6215+ 04/09 Robert Elz         Re: X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<Date: Th
6216+ 04/08 Brad Knowles       Re: X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<On Fri, 
6217+ 04/08 Ofer Inbar         require support of <><<RFC821 describes what a n
6218+ 04/09 Glenn Anderson     Re: require support of <><<>RFC821 describes wha
6219+ 04/09 Keith Moore        Re: X-headers cause uexpected behavior<<> The al
6220+ 04/11 Paul Hoffman / IM  Status of the drafts?<<What are we waiting for? 
6221+ 04/11 Pete Resnick       Re: Status of the drafts?<<On 4/11/99 at 2:55 PM
6222+ 04/22 mea@nic.funet.fi   Multiline error reports are an interoperability 
6223+ 04/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Multiline error reports are an interoperabil
6225+ 04/23 John C Klensin     Re: Multiline error reports are an interoperabil
6226+ 04/27 "Aleksey Sitnikov  <<c3Vic2NyaWJlDQoNCg== >>
6227+ 04/28 John Stracke       Heads-up: base64<<I found an inconsistency in RF
6228+ 05/06 Pete Loshin        Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<Hello! 
6229+ 05/06 Keith Moore        Re: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<> S
6230+ 05/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<Kei
6231+ 05/10 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<"D.
6232+ 05/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<The
6233+ 05/12 Pete Loshin        UTF-8 or US-ASCII in RFC 822bis?<<OK. I've just 
6234+ 05/13 Robert Elz         Re: UTF-8 or US-ASCII in RFC 822bis?<<Date: Wed,
6235+ 05/13 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: UTF-8 or US-ASCII in RFC 822bis?<<Pete Loshi
6236+ 05/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: UTF-8 or US-ASCII in RFC 822bis?<<Pete Loshi
6237+ 05/17 Johnny Eriksson    Re: UTF-8 or US-ASCII in RFC 822bis?<<"D. J. Ber
6238+ 05/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  comments on smtpupd-10<<I've now had a chance to
6239+ 05/19 Graham Klyne       obs-local-part<<I am wondering if the syntax for
6240+ 05/19 Keith Moore        Re: Quick questions about DRUMS progress...<<> S
6241+ 05/19 Pete Resnick       Re: obs-local-part<<On 5/19/99 at 1:04 AM +0100,
6242+ 05/21 Pete Resnick       Two small changes in msg-fmt<<Here are a couple 
6243+ 05/21 Pete Resnick       Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement text<
6244+ 05/25 Robert Elz         Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6245+ 05/25 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6246+ 05/26 Robert Elz         Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6247+ 05/26 "Perry E. Metzger  Just a heads up....<<I know this isn't DRUMS bus
6248+ 05/26 Brad Knowles       Re: Just a heads up....<<On Wed, May 26, 1999, P
6249+ 05/26 Pete Resnick       Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6250+ 05/26 Peter Sylvester    Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6251+ 05/26 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6252+ 05/27 Simon Lyall        Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6253+ 05/27 Robert Elz         Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6254+ 05/27 Robert Elz         Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6255+ 05/31 offshore99@yahoo.  TIRED OF THE 9 TO 5 YET?<<Ladies and Gentlemen, 
6256+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6257+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6258+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-Reply
6259+ 06/01 Brad Knowles       RE: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6260+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6261+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6262+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6263+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6264+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6265+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6266+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6267+ 06/01 John C Klensin     RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6268+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6269+ 06/01 Dave Crocker       Re: Just a heads up....<<At 10:48 AM 5/26/99 -04
6270+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6271+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6272+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6273+ 06/01 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6274+ 06/01 John C Klensin     Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6275+ 06/01 John C Klensin     RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6276+ 06/01 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6277+ 06/01 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6278+ 06/02 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6279+ 06/02 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6280+ 06/02 Alan Barrett       RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6281+ 06/02 Brad Knowles       RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6282+ 06/02 Brad Knowles       RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6283+ 06/02 Brad Knowles       RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6284+ 06/02 John C Klensin     Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6285+ 06/02 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6286+ 06/02 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6287+ 06/02 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6288+ 06/02 John C Klensin     Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6289+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6290+ 06/02 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6291+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6292+ 06/02 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6293+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6294+ 06/02 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6295+ 06/02 WJCarpenter        Re: Just a heads up....<<perry> In other words, 
6296+ 06/02 Brad Knowles       RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6297+ 06/02 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6298+ 06/03 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6299+ 06/02 John C Klensin     Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6300+ 06/03 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6301+ 06/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Message-ID responsibilities
6303+ 06/03 Ofer Inbar         Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<The Message-ID 
6304+ 06/03 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<On 6/3/99 a
6305+ 06/03 Ofer Inbar         Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<Pete Resnic
6306+ 06/03 Pete Resnick       Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<On 6/3/99 a
6307+ 06/04 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<Date: Thu, 
6308+ 06/04 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<At 2:56 PM 
6309+ 06/05 David Mayne        RCPT and user's mailbox quota exceeded question<
6310+ 06/05 David Mayne        One more RCPT to and [45]52 reponse code questio
6311+ 06/05 Russ Allbery       Re: RCPT and user's mailbox quota exceeded quest
6312+ 06/05 Keith Moore        Re: One more RCPT to and [45]52 reponse code que
6313+ 06/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<I'm reminde
6314+ 06/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: One more RCPT to and [45]52 reponse code que
6316+ 06/05 Keith Moore        Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<> P.S. Some
6317+ 06/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Context: DRUMS is 
6318+ 06/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6319+ 06/06 Keith Moore        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dan, your mess
6320+ 06/06 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID (was: RE: Take 2: References/In-R
6321+ 06/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Interoperability warning<<Michael Wang reports t
6322+ 06/06 Philip Hazel       Re: One more RCPT to and [45]52 reponse code que
6323+ 06/06 John C Klensin     Re: Interoperability warning<<--On Sunday, 06 Ju
6325+ 06/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-ID<<moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) w
6326+ 06/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Take 2: References/In-Reply-To replacement t
6327+ 06/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<presnick@qu
6328+ 06/06 Kai Henningsen     Re: Message-ID<<kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) w
6329+ 06/06 "Dick St.Peters"   Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<D. J. Bernstei
6330+ 06/06 David Mayne        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dick St.Peters
6331+ 06/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dick St.Peters
6332+ 06/07 Matt Curtin        Message-ID draft, comments please<<--dD2Pjhl6zv 
6333+ 06/07 "Larry Osterman (  RE: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<It was a stupi
6334+ 06/07 Valdis.Kletnieks@  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<--==_Exmh_-134
6335+ 06/07 Valdis.Kletnieks@  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<--==_Exmh_-122
6336+ 06/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Valdis.Kletnie
6337+ 06/07 Tony Hansen        Re: RCPT and user's mailbox quota exceeded quest
6338+ 06/07 Tony Hansen        any studies on LHS (localpart) being case insens
6339+ 06/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<See http://pob
6340+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 4:34 AM +00
6341+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 3:19 AM +00
6342+ 06/08 Lloyd Wood         Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<On 8 Jun 1999,
6343+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 12:50 PM +0
6344+ 06/08 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<Matt, I t
6345+ 06/08 Philip Hazel       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<On Tue, 8 Jun 
6346+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 6:11 P
6347+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 1:24 P
6348+ 06/08 Dave Sill          Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<Brad Know
6349+ 06/08 Keith Moore        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Sometimes the 
6350+ 06/07 "David Lemson (Pl  RE: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<This is a mult
6351+ 06/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Lloyd Wood wri
6352+ 06/08 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 9:34 A
6353+ 06/08 Graham Klyne       Hash function statistics; MD5 and SHA-1<<At 16:5
6354+ 06/08 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 14:45 
6355+ 06/08 Lyndon.Nerenberg@  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<> Everyone, pl
6356+ 06/09 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 8:29 P
6357+ 06/09 Paul Overell       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<In articl
6358+ 06/09 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 10:18 
6359+ 06/09 Jacob Palme        Re: Message-ID, FQDN, and authority<<At 01.46 +0
6360+ 06/09 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 11:54 
6361+ 06/09 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<>>>>> On 
6362+ 06/09 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<>>>>> On 
6363+ 06/10 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<Date: Wed
6364+ 06/10 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 4:39 P
6365+ 06/10 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<People who say
6366+ 06/10 Keith Moore        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dan, I'll chan
6367+ 06/10 Matt Curtin        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<>>>>> On 10 Ju
6368+ 06/10 Matt Curtin        Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<It sounds
6369+ 06/11 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Matt Curtin wr
6370+ 06/11 Robert Elz         Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<Date: 10 
6371+ 06/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 09:35 PM 6/
6372+ 06/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 05:49 PM 6/
6373+ 06/11 Dave Crocker       Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<At 10:11 AM 6/
6374+ 06/11 Brad Knowles       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 11:00 
6375+ 06/11 Graham Klyne       Re: Message-ID draft, comments please<<At 23:00 
6376+ 06/11 Dave Sill          Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dave Crocker <
6377+ 06/11 Keith Moore        Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<> Given the ea
6378+ 06/11 Craig Young        remove name<<Please remove kpayne@enstar.com <ma
6379+ 06/11 Lloyd Wood         Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<On Fri, 11 Jun
6380+ 06/11 "Matt Crawford"    Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<> There are ot
6381+ 06/11 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dave Crocker <
6382+ 06/11 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<Dave Sill <de5
6383+ 06/13 Dan Kohn           Really minor error in msg-fmt-07<<Example A.5, s
6384+ 06/14 Martin Hamilton    Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<-----BEGIN PGP
6385+ 06/14 Kai Henningsen     Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<djb@cr.yp.to (
6386+ 06/15 Kai Henningsen     Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms<<perry@piermont
6387+ 06/16 Claudio Allocchio  Delivery/Read norification discussion<<Hallo, As
6388+ 06/16 Pete Resnick       Re: Really minor error in msg-fmt-07<<Good catch
6389+ 06/16 Pete Resnick       Re: Two small changes in msg-fmt<<Since there we
6390+ 06/16 Sead Muftic        Re: Delivery/Read norification discussion<<Claud
6391+ 06/16 Dan Wing           Re: Delivery/Read norification discussion<<On We
6392+ 06/21 "Garmann, Bernhar  line length limit in RFC 821 and the draft-ietf-
6393+ 06/21 Matti Aarnio       Re: line length limit in RFC 821 and the draft-i
6394+ 06/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Recognizing mailing-list messages<<Kai Henningse
6395+ 06/22 Robert Elz         Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<Date: 22 
6396+ 06/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<Robert El
6397+ 06/24 Jacob Palme        Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<At 23.45 
6398+ 06/26 Kai Henningsen     Case sensitivity<<A recent exchange in USEFOR br
6399+ 06/26 Russ Allbery       Re: Case sensitivity<<Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.
6400+ 06/29 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<" DJB: An
6401+ 08/07 "D. J. Bernstein"  Messages without From<<Outlook 98 reportedly doe
6402+ 08/08 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Messages without From<<> Outlook 98 reported
6403+ 08/09 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Messages without From<<Roger Fajman writes: 
6404+ 08/09 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Messages without From<<> > I can confirm tha
6405+ 08/10 shelness@lotus.co  Re: Messages without From<<Roger, > We are heavy
6406+ 08/10 "Roger Fajman"     Re: Messages without From<<> > We are heavy user
6407+ 08/10 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Messages without From<<Dan, could you provid
6408+ 08/15 Jacob Palme        Fwd: Draft section_5.02.03<<I found the followin
6409+ 08/15 Russ Allbery       Re: Fwd: Draft section_5.02.03<<Jacob Palme <jpa
6410+ 08/16 "Jeff Stephenson   RE: Messages without From<<It turns out that the
6411+ 08/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<jpalme@ds
6412+ 08/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<kre@munna
6413+ 08/24 Kai Henningsen     Re: Recognizing mailing-list messages<<djb@cr.yp
6414+ 09/08 marketing          Check this out...<<NEWS RELEASE M&S Computer Pro
6415+ 09/09 Computer OEM Onli  Computer OEM Online Newsletter<<================
6416+ 09/17 Moneymaker@yahoo.  RICHES ARE WAITING<<This is a one time message, 
6417+ 09/22 Rolf Weber         drums-msg-fmt, section 3.6.2, "From:"<<In sectio
6418+ 10/07 Ofer Inbar         message format draft status?<<The latest message
6419+ 11/08 Pete Resnick       Re: message format draft status?<<On 10/7/99 at 
6420+ 11/24 Hugh Sasse         revised 822, and Reference: fields, etc.<<With r
6421+ 11/24 Jacob Palme        Re: revised 822, and Reference: fields, etc.<<At
6422+ 11/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: revised 822, and Reference: fields, etc.<<Hu
6423+ 12/29 "Mark Symons"      DRUMS Various<<A couple of things: 1) drums-msg-
6424+ 01/16 Charles Lindsey    References, and also dtext<<1. I see there has b
6426+ 01/26 Pete Resnick       Small changes in -msg-fmt-08<<I've sent out the 
6427+ 01/28 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-08.txt<<--Ne
6428+ 01/28 Charles Lindsey    Some small bugs?<<Just been looking at what can 
6429+ 01/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Some small bugs?<<On 1/28/00 at 11:05 AM +00
6430+ 01/28 Pete Resnick       Substantive typo in -msg-fmt-08<<I don't know ho
6431+ 01/28 Pete Resnick       Re: Substantive typo in -msg-fmt-08<<On 1/28/00 
6432+ 01/28 Keith Moore        Re: Some small bugs?<<> Also, now comments are o
6433+ 01/28 Charles Lindsey    Re: Some small bugs?<<On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:38:
6434+ 01/29 Robert Elz         Re: Substantive typo in -msg-fmt-08<<Date: Fri, 
6435+ 01/30 Charles Lindsey    Re: Some small bugs?<<> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk
6436+ 02/02 "Sam Roberts"      Q re schedule and (premature?) implementation of
6437+ 02/02 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Q re schedule and (premature?) implementatio
6438+ 02/02 Pete Resnick       Re: Q re schedule and (premature?) implementatio
6439+ 02/03 Charles Lindsey    Re: Q re schedule and (premature?) implementatio
6440+ 02/03 Charles Lindsey    utext<<Can somebody please explain what has been
6441+ 02/04 Dave Crocker       mailto url in To field<<Just got a message that 
6442+ 02/04 Robert Elz         Re: utext<<Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:00:46 +0000 
6443+ 02/04 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: mailto url in To field<<I've usually seen su
6444+ 02/05 Sam Roberts        RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<In the final
6445+ 02/05 Sam Roberts        ALPHA, DIGIT: no spec for them?<<I think I know 
6446+ 02/05 Pete Resnick       Re: utext<<On 2/4/00 at 3:57 PM +1100, Robert El
6447+ 02/05 Pete Resnick       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On 2/5/0
6448+ 02/05 Pete Resnick       Re: ALPHA, DIGIT: no spec for them?<<On 2/5/00 a
6449+ 02/05 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> 3. X- 
6450+ 02/05 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> if peo
6451+ 02/05 Dave Crocker       Re: mailto url in To field<<At 12:35 AM 2/5/2000
6452+ 02/06 Robert Elz         Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Date: Sa
6453+ 02/06 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> But th
6454+ 02/06 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> No, no
6455+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On 2/6/0
6456+ 02/06 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<X-Mailer
6457+ 02/06 Robert Elz         Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Date: Sa
6458+ 02/06 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 05:21
6459+ 02/06 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Sam Robe
6460+ 02/06 "D'Souza, Wilson   Unsubscribe<<Wilson D'souza Technology Infrastru
6461+ 02/06 Charles Lindsey    Re: utext<<On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 11:38:17 -0600 Pet
6462+ 02/06 Charles Lindsey    Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On Sat, 
6463+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: utext<<On 2/6/00 at 6:04 PM +0000, Charles L
6464+ 02/06 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> From t
6465+ 02/07 Robert Elz         Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Date: Su
6466+ 02/06 Ofer Inbar         References header language<<In 3.6.4, > The "Ref
6467+ 02/06 Ofer Inbar         whitespace in date-time<<> 3.3. Date and Time Sp
6468+ 02/06 Ofer Inbar         various minor corrections for msg-fmt-08<<In 3.2
6469+ 02/06 Sam Roberts        Obsolete Date&Time: other TZs?<<If other alphabe
6470+ 02/06 Sam Roberts        Re: Substantive typo in -msg-fmt-08 -> CFWS<<Any
6471+ 02/06 Sam Roberts        ambiguities in grammar with CFWS and the obs- st
6473+ 02/06 Sam Roberts        ambiguities in grammar with CFWS and the obs- st
6474+ 02/05 Sam Roberts        Why the ">" in the example message<<on p.34 of m
6475+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: Why the ">" in the example message<<On 2/5/0
6476+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: Substantive typo in -msg-fmt-08 -> CFWS<<On 
6477+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: Obsolete Date&Time: other TZs?<<On 2/6/00 at
6478+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: References header language<<On 2/6/00 at 6:1
6479+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: whitespace in date-time<<On 2/6/00 at 8:00 P
6480+ 02/06 Pete Resnick       Re: various minor corrections for msg-fmt-08<<On
6481+ 02/07 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: References header language<<Pete Resnick <pr
6482+ 02/07 Pete Resnick       Re: References header language<<On 2/7/00 at 1:3
6483+ 02/07 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: References header language<<Pete Resnick <pr
6484+ 02/07 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 04:08
6485+ 02/07 Ofer Inbar         Re: References header language<<Ofer Inbar <cos@
6486+ 02/07 Ofer Inbar         Re: whitespace in date-time<<Pete Resnick <presn
6487+ 02/07 Ofer Inbar         Re: various minor corrections for msg-fmt-08<<Pe
6488+ 02/07 Pete Resnick       Re: various minor corrections for msg-fmt-08<<On
6489+ 02/07 Pete Resnick       Re: References header language<<On 2/7/00 at 3:0
6490+ 02/07 Charles Lindsey    Re: ambiguities in grammar with CFWS and the obs
6491+ 02/07 Tony Hansen        Re: various minor corrections for msg-fmt-08<<Or
6492+ 02/07 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> As not
6493+ 02/07 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 04:12
6494+ 02/07 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<> At 04:
6495+ 02/08 Charles Lindsey    Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On Mon, 
6496+ 02/08 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 11:50
6497+ 02/08 Keith Moore        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<what you
6498+ 02/09 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 03:38
6499+ 02/09 Dave Crocker       Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 03:38
6500+ 02/09 Robert Elz         Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Date: Tu
6501+ 02/12 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Keith Mo
6502+ 02/13 taxfree9567@yahoo  Tired of the 9 to 5 yet?<<Are you serious? Serio
6503+ 02/14 Keith Moore        IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs<
6504+ 02/23 Charles Lindsey    Whitespace in Message Identifiers<<A problem has
6505+ 02/23 Jacob Palme        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<At 09.50
6506+ 02/23 Jacob Palme        Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<As a bas
6507+ 02/23 Jacob Palme        Re: Whitespace in Message Identifiers<<At 10.29 
6508+ 02/23 Charles Lindsey    Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On Wed, 
6509+ 02/24 Charles Lindsey    Re: Whitespace in Message Identifiers<<On Wed, 2
6510+ 02/24 Jacob Palme        Re: Whitespace in Message Identifiers<<At 09.15 
6511+ 02/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<Charles 
6512+ 02/25 Charles Lindsey    Re: RFC822's Appendix D, and X- fields<<On 24 Fe
6513+ 02/25 "D. J. Bernstein"  10000 *.com dotted-decimal MX records<<This isn'
6514+ 02/25 Randy Bush         Re: 10000 *.com dotted-decimal MX records<<pleas
6515+ 03/08 Charles Lindsey    Postmaster@<<RFC 822 contained quite a strong re
6516+ 03/08 Ofer Inbar         Re: Postmaster@<<Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man
6517+ 03/13 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-11.txt<<--Ne
6518+ 03/15 Dan Oscarsson      Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP without 
6519+ 03/15 Matti Aarnio       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6520+ 03/15 John C Klensin     Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6521+ 03/15 "Perry E. Metzger  Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6522+ 03/16 Dan Oscarsson      Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6523+ 03/16 Matti Aarnio       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6524+ 03/16 Dan Oscarsson      Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6525+ 03/16 Matti Aarnio       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6526+ 03/16 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6527+ 03/16 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6528+ 03/16 Robert Elz         Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6529+ 03/16 Dave Crocker       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6530+ 03/16 Charles Lindsey    Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6531+ 03/17 Robert Elz         Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6532+ 03/16 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6533+ 03/16 John C Klensin     Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6534+ 03/16 John C Klensin     Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6535+ 03/17 Dan Oscarsson      Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6536+ 03/17 Maynard Kang       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6537+ 03/17 Charles Lindsey    Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6538+ 03/17 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6539+ 03/17 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6540+ 03/17 Philip Hazel       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6541+ 03/17 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6542+ 03/17 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6543+ 03/17 Philip Hazel       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6544+ 03/17 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6545+ 03/18 Charles Lindsey    Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6546+ 03/19 Terje Bless        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6547+ 03/19 Keith Moore        Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6548+ 03/18 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6549+ 03/20 Maynard Kang       Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP with
6550+ 03/24 DRUMS Chair        DRUMs and UTF-8/internationalization<<Discussion
6551+ 04/26 newsletter@access  ON SALE THIS WEEK: 3COM PALM VX CONNECTED ORGANI
6552+ 05/09 "Formacompany"     Instant Financial Data on Every UK Business<<Do 
6553+ 05/14 offshore1444@yaho  Tired of the 9 to 5 Yet?<<Ladies and Gentlemen, 
6554+ 06/07 John C Klensin     Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<DRUMS partici
6555+ 06/07 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<>(i) CRLF
6556+ 06/07 Russ Allbery       Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<Paul Hoff
6557+ 06/07 Keith Moore        Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<re: 251 v
6558+ 06/08 Robert Elz         Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<Date: Wed
6559+ 06/08 Jacob Palme        Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<At 16.10 
6560+ 06/08 John C Klensin     Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<--On Thur
6561+ 06/08 Maurizio Codogno   Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<> (i) CRL
6562+ 06/08 Raouf Drine        <<I'am writing an SMTP implementation in C++...I
6563+ 06/09 Wilbert            Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<At 11:23 
6564+ 06/09 Keith Moore        Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<> >> SMTP
6565+ 06/09 Peter Koch         Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<Quoting W
6566+ 06/09 Jacob Palme        Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<At 01.56 
6567+ 06/11 John C Klensin     Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<--On Frid
6568+ 06/11 Keith Moore        Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<personall
6569+ 06/12 Philip Hazel       Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<On Thu, 8
6570+ 06/15 Dan Wing           Re: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<On Thu, 8
6571+ 06/16 "Christian Kuhtz"  RE: Outstanding issues for smtpupd-12<<> From: D
6573+ 07/07 John C Klensin     The "Postmaster" text<<I've tried to synthesize 
6575+ 07/07 John C Klensin     ASCII Null<<It appears that no one wanted to mak
6576+ 07/08 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: ASCII Null<<John C Klensin writes: > It appe
6577+ 07/07 Keith Moore        Re: The "Postmaster" text<<looks good to me. -Ke
6578+ 07/07 Keith Moore        Re: The 551/251 question<<I don't think the depr
6579+ 07/08 Dave Crocker       ABNF sets and sequences<<Folks, Some issues just
6580+ 07/08 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2
6581+ 07/08 Robert Elz         Re: The 551/251 question<<Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000
6582+ 07/08 Maurizio Codogno   Re: The "Postmaster" text<<> SMTP systems are ex
6584+ 07/08 Peter Koch         Re: The "Postmaster" text<<> other system on the
6585+ 07/08 John C Klensin     Re: The "Postmaster" text<<Peter, Based on earli
6586+ 07/08 Pete Resnick       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<On 7/8/00 at 9:02 A
6587+ 07/08 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<> - things can appe
6588+ 07/08 Pete Resnick       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<On 7/8/00 at 1:02 P
6589+ 07/08 John C Klensin     Re: The 551/251 question<<--==========989813775=
6590+ 07/08 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<I don't think it's 
6591+ 07/08 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<At 02:13 PM 7/8/00 
6592+ 07/09 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<At 01:42 PM 7/8/00 
6593+ 07/09 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<> >1. there are a l
6594+ 07/09 Keith Moore        Re: The 551/251 question<<the new 552/251 text l
6595+ 07/09 Kai Henningsen     Re: The 551/251 question<<klensin@jck.com (John 
6596+ 07/09 Kai Henningsen     Re: The "Postmaster" text<<klensin@jck.com (John
6597+ 07/09 Dave Crocker       Re: The "Postmaster" text<<At 05:09 PM 7/7/00 -0
6598+ 07/10 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<At 12:56 AM 7/9/00 
6599+ 07/09 Philip Guenther    Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Dave Crocker <dcroc
6600+ 07/10 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<> At 12:56 AM 7/9/0
6601+ 07/10 Robert Elz         Re: The 551/251 question<<Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000
6602+ 07/10 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2
6603+ 07/10 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2
6604+ 07/10 John C Klensin     smtpupd, draft 12<<Ok, it just went into the I-D
6605+ 07/10 shelness@lotus.co  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Dave, Robert, Keith
6606+ 07/10 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Nick, I agree with 
6607+ 07/10 Graham Klyne       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<At 03:19 AM 7/8/00 
6608+ 07/10 Chris Newman       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<The underlying prob
6609+ 07/10 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2
6610+ 07/11 Peter Koch         Re: The "Postmaster" text<<> We could, of course
6611+ 07/11 Dave Crocker       Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<PRIMARY COMMENT: At
6612+ 07/11 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-12.txt<<--Ne
6613+ 07/11 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<OK! So initially I 
6614+ 07/12 Robert Elz         Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2
6615+ 07/11 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Dave, what makes yo
6616+ 07/11 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Robert, I think tha
6617+ 07/11 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<I think this is all
6618+ 07/12 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Keith, As I tried t
6619+ 07/12 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Nick, one problem I
6620+ 07/12 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Keith, > one proble
6621+ 07/12 Keith Moore        Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<interesting ideas f
6622+ 07/12 Nick_Shelness@mot  Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<Keith, I think that
6623+ 07/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<moore@cs.utk.edu (K
6624+ 07/12 Kai Henningsen     Re: ABNF sets and sequences<<dcrocker@brandenbur
6625+ 07/13 Dave Sill          Message munging?<<Is there anything in 821 or it
6626+ 07/14 Dave Sill          Re: Message munging?<<I wrote: >Is there anythin
6627+ 07/14 Philip Hazel       Re: Message munging?<<On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Dave 
6628+ 07/14 Dave Sill          Re: Message munging?<<Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam
6629+ 07/14 Philip Hazel       Re: Message munging?<<On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Dave 
6630+ 07/14 Bernhard.Garmann@  Antwort: Re: Message munging?<<--0__=9iNonzmOPL7
6631+ 07/14 John C Klensin     Re: Message munging?<<--On Friday, July 14, 2000
6632+ 07/14 Keith Moore        Re: Message munging?<<> I understand that 821 on
6633+ 07/14 Dave Sill          Re: Message munging?<<Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.
6634+ 07/14 Charles Lindsey    Re: Message munging?<<On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:59:
6635+ 07/14 Keith Moore        Re: Message munging?<<> >> I understand that 821
6636+ 07/19 John C Klensin     Re: mail-abuse.org tests, and weird addresses...
6637+ 07/19 Valdis.Kletnieks@  Re: mail-abuse.org tests, and weird addresses...
6638+ 07/19 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP WG Last-Call<<This is the WG last call on d
6639+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<My web page http://cr.yp.
6640+ 07/20 Dave Crocker       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<At 12:14 AM 7/20/00 +0000
6641+ 07/20 Philip Hazel       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Dave
6642+ 07/20 Matti Aarnio       Comments on smtpupd-12<<I have tried to read the
6643+ 07/20 Dave Sill          Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@br
6644+ 07/20 "Nick Shelness/SS  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave, You wrote:- > I agr
6645+ 07/20 Dave Crocker       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<At 09:39 AM 7/20/00 +0100
6646+ 07/20 Dave Sill          Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<"Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus"
6647+ 07/20 Keith Moore        Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<I'm always amused (not) w
6648+ 07/20 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<At 10:02 AM -0400 7/20/00
6649+ 07/20 Eliot Lear         Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<I generally agree with Ke
6650+ 07/20 Charles Lindsey    Re: Comments on smtpupd-12<<On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 
6651+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave Crocker writes: > th
6652+ 07/20 Dave Sill          Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<lear@cisco.com wrote: >Th
6653+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus w
6654+ 07/20 Philip Hazel       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Keit
6655+ 07/20 Keith Moore        Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<> > finally a client that
6656+ 07/21 Michael Scharff    Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Were we to follow the log
6657+ 07/21 Michael Scharff    Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Well then, I'll apologize
6658+ 07/20 "D. J. Bernstein"  DATA 387<<> allowing only a single "OK" response
6659+ 07/20 Russ Allbery       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@br
6660+ 07/20 esr@thyrsus.com    Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Russ Allbery <rra@stanfor
6661+ 07/21 Dave Crocker       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<At 03:35 PM 7/20/00 -0700
6662+ 07/20 Russ Allbery       Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave Crocker <dcrocker@br
6663+ 07/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Keith Moore writes: [ abo
6664+ 07/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Eliot Lear writes: > prog
6665+ 07/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Keith Moore writes: > It'
6666+ 07/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Paul Hoffman / IMC writes
6667+ 07/21 Glenn Anderson     Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<> In reality, for interop
6668+ 07/21 "Nick Shelness/SS  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave, You ask > What is t
6669+ 07/21 "Nick Shelness/SS  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dan, Now that you have no
6670+ 07/21 "D. J. Bernstein"  client requests ending \012<<Glenn Anderson writ
6671+ 07/21 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<On 21 Jul 2000,
6672+ 07/21 Eliot Lear         Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<D. J. Bernstein writes: >
6673+ 07/21 Dave Sill          Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<"Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus"
6674+ 07/22 Robert Elz         Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09
6675+ 07/22 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: client requests ending \012<<Philip Hazel wr
6677+ 07/22 Kai Henningsen     Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<esr@thyrsus.com wrote on 
6678+ 07/22 Charles Lindsey    Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:02
6679+ 07/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  MX lookups in dumb clients<<Kai Henningsen write
6680+ 07/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Charles Lindsey writes: >
6681+ 07/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus w
6682+ 07/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  A quick reminder about SHOULD<<Please remember t
6683+ 07/23 "D. J. Bernstein"  HELO procedural notes<<Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus w
6684+ 07/24 "Nick Shelness/SS  Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<Dave, You wrote in respon
6685+ 07/23 Glenn Anderson     Re: client requests ending \012<<>Klensin then e
6686+ 07/25 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<On Sun, 23 Jul 
6687+ 07/25 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<Perhaps this pr
6688+ 07/25 Glenn Anderson     Re: client requests ending \012<<>On Sun, 23 Jul
6689+ 07/25 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<On Tue, 25 Jul 
6690+ 07/25 "Mark Symons"      RE: client requests ending \012<<>>On Sun, 23 Ju
6691+ 07/25 Charles Lindsey    Re: client requests ending \012<<On Tue, 25 Jul 
6692+ 07/25 Michael Scharff    Re: client requests ending \012<<I have to chime
6693+ 07/25 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<On Tue, 25 Jul 
6694+ 07/25 "Lee Thompson"     Re: client requests ending \012<<On Tue, 25 Jul 
6695+ 07/25 Tony Hansen        Re: client requests ending \012<<For DATA, our i
6696+ 07/25 Michael Scharff    RE: client requests ending \012<<<html> I don't 
6697+ 07/25 "Larry Osterman"   RE: client requests ending \012<<This is a multi
6698+ 07/25 Michael Richardso  Re: client requests ending \012<<>>>>> "Lee" == 
6699+ 07/25 Paul Hoffman / IM  RE: client requests ending \012<<At 2:39 PM -070
6700+ 07/26 Philip Hazel       RE: client requests ending \012<<On Tue, 25 Jul 
6701+ 07/26 Edward Hibbert     RE: client requests ending \012<<I disapprove of
6702+ 07/26 Maurizio Codogno   RE: client requests ending \012<<> From: Edward 
6703+ 07/26 Eliot Lear         Re: client requests ending \012<<The problem, ag
6704+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<So, my question
6705+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 07:53 PM 7/2
6706+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 02:16 PM 7/2
6707+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> The problem, 
6708+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> The difficult
6709+ 07/26 Charles Lindsey    Re: client requests ending \012<<On Wed, 26 Jul 
6710+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> Naked LF shou
6711+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 09:35 AM 7/2
6712+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> We were told 
6713+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 03:34 PM 7/2
6714+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> Well in fact,
6715+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 03:44 PM 7/2
6716+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> the operation
6717+ 07/26 Dave Crocker       Re: client requests ending \012<<At 05:22 PM 7/2
6718+ 07/26 Keith Moore        Re: client requests ending \012<<> > >how? SMTP 
6719+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Procedures for Moving Forward<<Since 23 individu
6720+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: Comments on smtpupd-12<<This thread has too 
6721+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: SMTP WG Last-Call<<--On Thursday, July 20, 2
6722+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: DATA 387<<This issue will be considered clos
6723+ 07/26 Charles Lindsey    Re: client requests ending \012<<On Wed, 26 Jul 
6724+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: client requests ending \012<<This debate clo
6725+ 07/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: A quick reminder about SHOULD<<This subject 
6726+ 07/27 Arthur Gallun      unsubscribe<<unsubscribe _______________________
6727+ 07/27 Keith Moore        suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<this is a ve
6728+ 07/27 Keith Moore        Re: unsubscribe<<I don't find your name on the d
6729+ 07/27 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: HELO procedural notes<<--On Sunday, July 23,
6730+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: client requests ending \012<<Chris Newman wr
6731+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: HELO procedural notes<<Section 2.2.1 says ``
6732+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: HELO procedural notes<<Chris Newman writes: 
6733+ 07/27 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<If you s
6734+ 07/27 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: Procedures for Moving Forward<<--On Wednesda
6735+ 07/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<On Jul 2
6736+ 07/27 Maurizio Codogno   Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<> If you
6737+ 07/27 Michael Scharff    Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<I too wi
6738+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: HELO procedural notes<<Some juicy historical
6739+ 07/27 "Bart Schaefer"    Conflict between X.1.9(iv) and literal interpret
6740+ 07/27 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<The prop
6741+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<I agree 
6742+ 07/27 Keith Moore        Re: Conflict between X.1.9(iv) and literal inter
6743+ 07/27 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Procedures for Moving Forward<<There are man
6744+ 07/27 "Eric S. Raymond"  Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<D. J. Be
6745+ 07/27 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<At 7:29 
6746+ 07/27 Keith Moore        2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<several 
6747+ 07/28 Charles Lindsey    Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<On T
6748+ 07/28 "Nick Shelness/SS  Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<I co
6749+ 07/28 Keith Moore        Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<> Bu
6750+ 07/28 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<Keit
6751+ 07/28 Michael Scharff    Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<The 
6752+ 07/28 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<On J
6753+ 07/28 Keith Moore        Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<> > 
6754+ 07/28 Barry Finkel       Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<Keit
6755+ 07/28 Keith Moore        Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<> Is
6756+ 07/28 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<--On Thu
6757+ 07/28 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP draft Issues<<"suggested revision for MUST/
6758+ 07/28 Russ Allbery       Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<DRUMS WG
6759+ 07/28 Maurizio Codogno   "not conformity"<<> > Is there a semantic differ
6761+ 07/28 Charles Lindsey    Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<On F
6763+ 07/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: client requests ending \012<<ph10@cus.cam.ac
6764+ 07/29 Kai Henningsen     Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<djb@
6766+ 07/29 callback123@altav  Re: From Lorraine,as promised,I can lower your b
6767+ 07/30 Robert Elz         Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<Date
6768+ 07/29 Dave Crocker       Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<At 0
6769+ 07/30 Philip Hazel       Re: client requests ending \012<<On 29 Jul 2000,
6770+ 07/30 Charles Lindsey    Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<=09O
6771+ 07/30 Gregory Neil Shap  Minor edits for smtpupd-12<<In accordance with t
6772+ 07/30 Gregory Neil Shap  smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<Section 2
6773+ 07/30 Gregory Neil Shap  smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buffers
6774+ 07/30 Gregory Neil Shap  smtpupd-12: Order of commands<<Given that sectio
6775+ 07/30 Gregory Neil Shap  smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<Section 4
6776+ 07/31 John Beck          Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<Grego
6777+ 07/31 Gregory Neil Shap  Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6778+ 07/31 Gregory Neil Shap  Re: smtpupd-12: Order of commands<<gshapiro> Giv
6779+ 07/31 John Beck          Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6780+ 08/01 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP draft issues (2)<<I am tracking the followi
6781+ 08/02 Eric Allman        Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<I agr
6782+ 08/02 Eric Allman        Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6783+ 08/02 Eric Allman        Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<I don
6784+ 08/02 John Beck          Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<Grego
6785+ 08/02 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6786+ 08/02 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<On We
6787+ 08/02 Philip Hazel       Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<On We
6788+ 08/02 Eric Allman        Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<I'm s
6789+ 08/02 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<I sup
6790+ 08/02 "Bart Schaefer"    Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<On Au
6791+ 08/02 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6792+ 08/02 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<> I s
6793+ 08/02 Keith Moore        Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<> I a
6794+ 08/02 Dave Sill          Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<Eric 
6795+ 08/02 Dave Sill          Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<Eric 
6796+ 08/04 Russ Allbery       Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6797+ 08/09 "Lee Thompson"     Re: smtpupd-12: MAIL resets state tables and buf
6798+ 08/09 "Lee Thompson"     Re: smtpupd-12: Four letter command verbs<<On We
6799+ 08/09 "Lee Thompson"     Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?<<On We
6800+ 08/11 "Perry E. Metzger  non-english bounce<<[Slightly off topic, but...]
6801+ 08/11 Dave Crocker       Re: non-english bounce<<At 12:31 PM 8/11/00 -040
6802+ 08/13 Kai Henningsen     Re: non-english bounce<<perry@wasabisystems.com 
6803+ 08/13 Keith Moore        Re: non-english bounce<<this is part of why DSNs
6804+ 08/14 Chris Newman       RSET scope issue<<There is a bug in the definiti
6805+ 08/14 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD<<Paul & J
6806+ 08/14 "Lee Thompson"     Re: RSET scope issue<<On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:16:
6807+ 08/14 Russ Allbery       Re: RSET scope issue<<Chris Newman <cnewman@inno
6808+ 08/14 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP draft issues (3)<<I am tracking the followi
6809+ 08/14 Gregory Neil Shap  Re: RSET scope issue<<cnewman> The sentence I ha
6810+ 08/14 "Woodhouse, Grego  RE: RSET scope issue<<It basically makes sense t
6811+ 08/14 Russ Allbery       Re: RSET scope issue<<Woodhouse, Gregory J <greg
6812+ 08/15 Philip Hazel       Re: RSET scope issue<<On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Chris
6813+ 08/15 John Beck          Re: RSET scope issue<<+> 4.1.1.5 RESET (RSET) +>
6814+ 08/15 Russ Allbery       Re: RSET scope issue<<Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam
6815+ 08/15 Chris Newman       Re: RSET scope issue<<--On Tuesday, August 15, 2
6816+ 08/16 John Gardiner Mye  Negotiated noncompliance<<This is a cryptographi
6817+ 08/16 Dave Crocker       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<> If an implementa
6818+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<I would like to re
6819+ 08/16 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<At 8:28 PM -0400 8
6820+ 08/16 Keith Moore        Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<> I would like to 
6821+ 08/17 Eliot Lear         Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<I would like to se
6822+ 08/17 Dave Crocker       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<At 01:32 AM 8/17/0
6823+ 08/17 Eliot Lear         Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Dave, If we had st
6824+ 08/17 Charles Lindsey    Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<On Wed, 16 Aug 200
6825+ 08/17 Keith Moore        Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Eliot's text is a 
6826+ 08/17 Kai Henningsen     Re: RSET scope issue<<cnewman@innosoft.com (Chri
6827+ 08/17 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP draft issues (4)<<I am tracking the followi
6828+ 08/17 Barry Leiba        Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Dave writes: > At 
6829+ 08/17 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: SMTP draft issues (4)<<--On Thursday, August
6830+ 08/17 Chris Newman       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Personally, I'd li
6831+ 08/17 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<This is a cryptogr
6832+ 08/17 John Gardiner Mye  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<This is a cryptogr
6833+ 08/17 Charles Lindsey    Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<On Thu, 17 Aug 200
6834+ 08/18 Philip Hazel       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<On Thu, 17 Aug 200
6835+ 08/21 Political Affairs  Free, Interactive Refugees of the World<<The Pub
6836+ 08/22 DRUMS WG Chair     Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<The chair's observ
6837+ 08/23 Eliot Lear         Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<I would like to se
6838+ 08/23 Keith Moore        Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<> In reverse order
6839+ 08/23 Robert Elz         Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Almost everything 
6840+ 08/23 Philip Hazel       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<On Wed, 23 Aug 200
6841+ 08/24 Robert Elz         Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Date: Wed, 23 Aug 
6842+ 08/23 Charles Lindsey    Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<On Wed, 23 Aug 200
6843+ 08/24 "D. J. Bernstein"  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<> SHOULD narrowly 
6844+ 08/23 Russ Allbery       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<D J Bernstein <djb
6845+ 08/25 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Robert Elz <kre@mu
6846+ 08/25 DRUMS WG Chair     SMTP draft issues (5)<<The following issues to h
6847+ 08/29 Harald Alvestrand  Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<At 22:17 23/08/200
6848+ 08/30 Graham Klyne       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<At 09:19 AM 8/17/0
6849+ 08/30 Barry Finkel       Re: Negotiated noncompliance<<Someone proposed t
6850+ 09/10 westoakwireless@y  FREE Investor's kit - Wireless Company Goes Publ
6851+ 09/11 Pete Resnick       draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt<<I have just sen
6852+ 09/12 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt<<--Ne
6853+ 09/17 Afriend@cares4u.c  Very Interesting<<a special letter for you via C
6854+ 09/18 "Lee Thompson"     Re: Very Interesting (but for different reasons)
6855+ 09/18 Keith Moore        Re: Very Interesting (but for different reasons)
6856+ 09/19 nile333@5Tmarketi  So, How in the heck have you been?<<So, How in t
6857+ 09/27 "Kumar Gaurav Kha  Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail
6858+ 09/28 cheaprates1234@ea  from:mark,you filled out a chance to win free ph
6859+ 09/28 Internet-Drafts@i  I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt<<--Ne
6860+ 09/28 Dan Wing           Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6861+ 09/28 "Lee Thompson"     Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6862+ 09/28 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6863+ 09/28 Dan Wing           Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6864+ 09/28 Tony Hansen        Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6865+ 09/28 DRUMS WG Chair     WG Last Call of draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt<
6866+ 09/28 Russ Allbery       Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6867+ 09/29 Philip Hazel       Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6868+ 10/02 Kai Henningsen     Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6869+ 10/03 Brad Knowles       Multiple HELO/EHLO?<<Folks, This question recent
6870+ 10/03 Lyndon Nerenberg   Re: Multiple HELO/EHLO?<<> Now, the only section
6871+ 10/03 Brad Knowles       Re: Multiple HELO/EHLO?<<At 10:29 AM -0600 2000/
6872+ 10/03 Terje Bless        Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6873+ 10/03 Brad Knowles       Minor typo found<<Folks, In my previous message,
6874+ 10/03 Philip Hazel       Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the 
6875+ 10/06 DRUMS WG Chair     draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt<<The draft draft
6876+ 10/24 executive@emodelf  From emodelfashion<<----------------------------
6877+ 10/25 fast_ride2001      FREE! Get A Great Price On A New Car! (7dab09c1)
6878+ 11/02 hv@of-hachetal.de  At last, Herbal V, the all natural alternative t
6879+ 11/05 The IESG           Last Call: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to Prop
6880+ 11/05 Dave Crocker       Re: Last Call: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to 
6881+ 11/19 "the stock shark.  (THESTOCKSHARK.COM)<<If you are interested in un
6882+ 12/06 The IESG           Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol t
6883+ 12/06 Tony Hansen        Re: Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protoc
6884+ 12/06 Charles Lindsey    Re: Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protoc
6885+ 12/06 Pete Resnick       Re: Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protoc
6886+ 01/00 Mail Sender        Russian Goods and Service from Moscow<<www.rusgo
6887+ 12/21 hj4hj6@yahoo.com   Improve your stepfamily life<<Does your stepfami
6888+ 12/27 The IESG           Protocol Action: Internet Message Format to Prop
6889+ 12/27 Pete Resnick       Re: Protocol Action: Internet Message Format to 
6890+ 12/30 Radardoo@aol.com   Internet Detective @ Your Fingertips<<Now you ca
6891+ 01/18 "Spiderline"       Your Site Search Engine<<Make your Website Searc
6892+ 01/22 emed22@libero.it   Obtain Biotech IPOs! 164<<<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC 
6893+ 01/25 "Adam Carleton"    Re: The resume you posted online<<After seeing y
6894+ 01/27 "Michael Weaver"   Re: Beck-Faulk<<After seeing your resume, I feel
6895+ 01/29 "Lee Thompson"     Re: Beck-Faulk<<I don't think these types of mes
6896+ 01/31 homeloan1005@aol.  Buying a home? Self employed? Hard to qualify? 1
6897+ 02/07 b4h443@arabia.com  Brand New E-Mail pager for FR-EE!<<Brand New E-M
6898+ 02/16 "Camelot Events R  Join us at XML DevCon!<<+ + + + + + + + + + + + 
6899+ 02/25 hurtta+zz@leija.m  [comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers] Re: RFC Confl
6900+ 03/05 "Mark Symons"      RE: Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protoc
6901+ 03/05 Pete Resnick       RE: Protocol Action: Simple Mail Transfer Protoc
6902+ 03/11 Sam Roberts        history of using a comment for display-name?<<Do
6903+ 03/12 Dave Crocker       Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6904+ 03/12 "Maynard Kang"     Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6905+ 03/12 Robert Elz         Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6906+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6907+ 03/12 "Maynard Kang"     Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6908+ 03/12 Keith Moore        Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6909+ 03/12 Eric Allman        Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6910+ 03/12 "Maynard Kang"     Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6911+ 03/12 "Larry Osterman"   RE: history of using a comment for display-name?
6912+ 03/13 Sam Roberts        Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6913+ 03/13 Keith Moore        Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6914+ 03/13 Michael Richardso  Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6915+ 03/13 Larry Campbell     Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6916+ 03/14 Laurence Lundblad  Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6917+ 03/16 Kai Henningsen     Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
6918+ 03/16 Bernhard.Garmann@  Antwort: Re: history of using a comment for disp
6919+ 04/05 "Rita de Groot"    huidziekte<<Vijf jaar voordat deze foto's werden
6920+ 02/07 "ilovedomain"      / <<PEhUTUw+DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIE5BTUU9IkdFTkVS
6921+ 04/12 christmaseveryday  48. (ADV) FREE GIFT LOCATOR!!!<<<html> <head> <m
6922+ 04/16 jerryrice@bitch.o  IT Contact Database...<<As a dot.com professiona
6923+ 04/19 " "                drums ?<<PEhUTUw+DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIE5BTUU9Ikd
6924+ 04/24 Paul Hoffman / IM  Jumping the gun, but...<<... RFC 2821 and RFC282
6925+ 04/24 Keith Moore        Re: Jumping the gun, but...<<and for those of yo
6926+ 04/24 Dave Crocker       Re: Jumping the gun, but...<<long-fought, hard-w
6927+ 04/24 RFC Editor         RFC 2821 on Simple Mail Transfer Protocol<<--Nex
6928+ 04/24 RFC Editor         RFC 2822 on Internet Message Format<<--NextPart 
6929+ 04/25 DRUMS WG Chair     Request to conclude DRUMS WG<<With the publicati
6930+ 04/25 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pa  Re: Request to conclude DRUMS WG<<--On 01-04-25 
6931+ 04/25 ned.freed@mrochek  Re: Request to conclude DRUMS WG<<> --On 01-04-2
6932+ 04/25 Paul Hoffman / IM  Re: Request to conclude DRUMS WG<<At 1:55 PM -07
6933+ 04/25 Harald Tveit Alve  Re: Jumping the gun, but...<<At 10:40 24.04.2001
6934+ 04/26 Steve Coya         Re: Request to conclude DRUMS WG<<Drums now slee
6935+ 04/26 Russ Allbery       Thank you, all<<My sincere gratitude to all the 
6936+ 04/26 Chris Newman       ABNF validator<<I've created a little utility to
6937+ 04/26 DRUMS WG Chair     Many thanks<<Many thanks to the document editors
6938+ 04/26 Tony Hansen        Re: Many thanks<<If Keith can do it, how about s
6939+ 04/27 Keith Moore        Re: Many thanks<<> If Keith can do it, how about