I dont particularly care if ADSP sinks .. i= being forced / mandated, with various contortionist use-case scenarios isnt really going to make it all that much of a hit among receivers.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > John Levine wrote: >> Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one >> on this messgage isn't. > > So, for clarity, can you (or someone) call out what you think is > the impact, if any, for ADSP, caused by this proposed change to > 4871. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
