Veronica, I see... Well, maybe my English is rusty too ;) I certainly didn't mean that David must implement it. My apologies are = in due then...
Although it's a cheerful thought being able to command your provider for = additional functionalities and features :) Noor -----Original Message----- From: Veronica Loell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Re: Reusing open connections =F0=E5=F8 =E3=E0=E5=E3 wrote / skrev: > MUST? No no one said that, David. > No one can force you. >=20 > You can either implement it or not. What's the catch here? Why not to = do =3D > it? >=20 > Noor [...] > On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, [windows-1255] =3D3DF0=3D3DE5=3D3DF8 = =3D3DE3=3D3DE0=3D3DE5=3D3DE3 =3D > wrote: >=20 >=20 >>David, >>=3D3D20 >>I guess no one can force you to use the RFC. But it's written there, = =3D >=20 The way you phrased it implied to me as well that you meant this was a MUST in the RFC and not an optional part. To me "using the RFC" would mean comply to it not implement every possible optional feature in it. - Veronica Loell - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
