>>>>> "MN" == Mike Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MN> I guess I'm unclear on several things here. Is this new RFC final or
MN> is it still in the 'draft' stage?
It's not 'new', and it's not a draft:
2142 Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions. D.
Crocker. May 1997. (Format: TXT=12195 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
STANDARD)
MN> Is the key portion cited here really that unclear, or is it just that
MN> some of us list managers don't know what it means or don't want to
MN> accept that meaning?
Well, read it for yourself. What do you think? I think the fact that
reasonable people can disagree about its meaning would seem to indicate
that its meaning isn't absolute.
MN> It strikes me as a bit high and mighty for some of us to claim that
MN> we're not going to play ball just because we weren't invited to help
MN> write the rules.
If we can't even agree on what the rules tell us to do, how are we supposed
to play by them?
- J<
