Hi Mykyta,
At 08:14 18-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Neither RFC 2476 nor RFC 4409 asked IANA to make changes according
to the contents of these tables; but this draft does. 4409 and its
predecessor just mentioned which are eligible for use with submission.
I'll discuss this matter with
18.08.2011 10:06, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
At 09:21 17-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
IANA commented that it should be clear that the registry refers to
SMTP Service
Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but the
registry there
From the write-up:
The entry in
Hi Mykyta,
At 09:21 17-08-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
IANA commented that it should be clear that the registry refers to
SMTP Service
Extensions (http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters); but
the registry there
From the write-up:
The entry in the SMTP Service Extensions registry
My 2 pence:
I did finally manage to read the document and I support its
publication. The only minor comment:
The table in Table 1 has been corrected (reference for NO-SOLICITING)
and extended (ATRN, DELIVERBY, CONPEM, and CONNEG). The registry
should be updated to reflect the
