RFC 2821 and 2822
Hadn't seen this mentioned here, and thought it might be of general interest. RFCs 2821 and 2822 were published today, obsoleting the venerable RFCs 821 and 822, covering SMTP and the Internet Message Format, respectively. They're available from the usual places, including: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2822.txt No big changes; from what I've read so far (I've read half of 2821), they just do things like remove cruft (SEND, SOML, and friends), deprecate things that haven't been used in the real world for years (source-routing of email addresses), and clarify minor ambiguities. -ScottG.
Re: RFC 2821 and 2822
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? I'm sure that there will be some schmuck member of management will hear about these and come to me pulling their hair out, wondering how we will ever survive moving to these new processes, and will end up suggesting moving to Exchange 2000 because 'Microsoft always follows standards'. I'm fairly certain that we have nothing to worry about, but I want to be sure. MHP
Re: RFC 2821 and 2822
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. I'm sure that there will be some schmuck member of management will hear about these and come to me pulling their hair out, wondering how we will ever survive moving to these new processes, and will end up suggesting moving to Exchange 2000 because 'Microsoft always follows standards'. Microsoft is the standard deviation from the norm. err the standards deviator from seattle. well, you get the point. mike
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. PGP signature
Re: RFC 2821 and 2822
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.
