Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Hi Dave,
(this concerns rfc1652bis)
On 1/25/2010 1:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 20/Jan/10 23:45, [email protected] wrote:
Title : SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport
Should section 2 mention that the extension is valid for both SMTP and
Submit? I haven't got that bit quite straight, yet...
Given that an extension like this declares its intended venue -- note
"/SMTP/ Service Extension" I would guess that it should also declare
other venues that it is valid for. So yeah, it might be appropriate
to have it declare that it's for Submit, also.
But I'm not positive. I'm particularly concerned that there might be
a subtle issue here that I'm missing.
Newer SMTP extensions explicitly declare themselve as suitable (or not
suitable) for Submit. I personally don't see any issue with that.
Comments?
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
