On 6/13/2010 1:00 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
IMO, if this sort of hairsplitting belongs anywhere at all, it
is in 5598bis, not in 4409. If nothing else, the explanations
of the terminology edge cases are just too distracting for a
protocol specification unless they are absolutely necessary for
clarity of the protocol itself.
The explanation given in RFC 5598 is much wider, but still doesn't cover
fetchmail, because of the envelope changes. It references RFC 1506 for
the term "MTA". However, the latter RFC does not give a formal
definition either.
I've changed the Subject line, for some meager differentiation from the wg
charter-related discussion that prompted this. But I'm feeling obligated to ask
you to elaborate.
To be pedantic and perhaps even thorough:
1. Can you give a very brief summary of the scenario that fetchmail
provides that you believe needs to be covered and is not (and for what
definition, exactly)?
2. What text, in particular, is wrong with respect to the case you cite, or
what functionality needs to be covered and is not?
Thanks.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
