In article
you write:
>happened in the deployed universe. So now we have a registry entry for the
>"body" ptype which isn't deprecated, but possibly no live uses of it. ...
I'd leave it there, at least so nobody inadvertently reuses the ptype name.
Apropos the comment about VBR, as far as I
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:25:45AM -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> > > Section 2.3
> > > >
> > > >body: Information that was extracted from the body of the message.
> > > > [...]
> > > > interest. The "property" is an
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Section 2.3
> > >
> > >body: Information that was extracted from the body of the message.
> > > [...]
> > > interest. The "property" is an indication of where within the
> > > message body the extracted content was
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 09:07:24PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:58 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> >
> > For example, in Section 1:
> >
> >There exist registries for tokens used within this header field that
> >refer to the specifications listed above.
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
