You can basically take the difference between the two and stick it up a
nat's a** ... Or at least thats my observation.. Everything I have read
so far goes with what ya say chris... But just for the fun of it why
doesn't everyone here on the list get together and will write up our own
standards (evil grin)
We'd just need a catchy name for it..
--JT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 4/25/01, 4:08:13 PM, "Chris Garrigues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: RFC 2821 and
2822:
> > From: Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:49:24 +0300
> >
> > Matthew Patterson wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not very good at reading RFCs, so I can't be sure myself. Can anyone
> > > confirm that qmail 1.3 with the BigDNS and queuevar patches will be
> > > compliant with whatever standards may come out of RFCs 2821 and 2822?
> >
> > It could literally take years for RFCs to become standards, if they ever
> > do. You don't have to worry too soon, I think.
> 2821 and 2822 are clarifications of 821 and 822; they don't throw away
the
> existing standards. qmail should already be just as compatible as it was
with
> the old standards.
> Chris
> --
> Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
> virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
> 4314 Avenue C
> Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
> My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
> explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
> Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
> but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
