On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 09:02 -0700, Ludovic Poitou wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> As far as I remember, since this happened more than 10 years ago, Luke
> working with people at HP started to revise RFC2307 (which is
> experimental i.e. not even close to a standard). Sun and HP
> implemented some of the
John Lewis wrote:
> It is only going to take me a couple days to read the whole archive
> (Thanks Evolution team https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/ for mbox
> import support) and another half hour to change into the cloths of the
> corporate entity I want to go into the discussion as.
If you
Hi,
As far as I remember, since this happened more than 10 years ago, Luke
working with people at HP started to revise RFC2307 (which is experimental
i.e. not even close to a standard). Sun and HP implemented some of the
ideas, but other vendors did not.
Just my 2 cents.
Ludo
—
Ludovic Poitou
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:
> John Lewis wrote:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
> >
> > They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc
> > norms.
>
> Naming is fine because it's still only a Internet draft and not an
John Lewis wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
>
> They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc
> norms.
Naming is fine because it's still only a Internet draft and not an RFC.
> I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc
norms. Normally a new standard would be rfc and then the next number
available. This one deviated, It used the same number as the old one and
appended text. The standard
