Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers
Hugh McIntyre <hughm@bristol.st.com> Mon, 20 November 1995 17:51 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17498; 20 Nov 95 12:51 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17493; 20 Nov 95 12:51 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13733; 20 Nov 95 12:51 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17480; 20 Nov 95 12:51 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17440; 20 Nov 95 12:48 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13663; 20 Nov 95 12:48 EST
Received: from relay2.UU.NET by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA10383>; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:48:12 -0800
Received: from daisy by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP id QQzqrv02010; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:47:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: by daisy id RAA06444; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:33:32 GMT
Received: by milkwort.inmos.co.uk.co.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22590; Mon, 20 Nov 95 17:27:00 GMT
To: info-ietf@uunet.uu.net
Path: marlon!hughm
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Hugh McIntyre <hughm@bristol.st.com>
Newsgroups: info.ietf
Subject: Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:26:58 +0000
Organization: SGS-Thomson Microelectronics Limited, Bristol, UK
Lines: 24
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <48qdp3$m1s@milkwort.inmos.co.uk>
References: <4883ue$dcd@milkwort.inmos.co.uk> <199511141352.AB22495@gateway.fedex.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: marlon.inmos.co.uk
In article <199511141352.AB22495@gateway.fedex.com>, kajohnso@fedex.com (Keith Johnson) writes: |> On 13 Nov 1995, Hugh McIntyre wrote: |> > As for the general idea of some sort of standardisation, this seems a good |> > idea, at least to say "this is what is preferred". Presumably, this would |> > be best tagged onto one of the other mail RFCs being worked on at present. |> ====================================================== |> |> Should this be a BCP? Specifically, I was suggesting the following Internet draft: draft-ietf-mailext-mail-attributes-02.txt [This is accessible as: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mailext-mail-attributes-02.txt (amongst other places).] Hugh. -- | Hugh McIntyre | hughm@bristol.st.com | SGS-Thomson Microelectronics Ltd, 1000 Aztec West, | or: hughm@inmos.co.uk | Almondsbury, Bristol, BS12 4SQ, UK. | or: hugh.mcintyre@st.com | Tel: +44 (0)1454 611443, FAX: +44 (0)1454 620688 |
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Eric Ewanco
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Dave Crocker
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Garrett A. Wollman
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Ed Levinson
- Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Eric Ewanco
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Randy Bush
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Hugh McIntyre
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Andy Cohen
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Eric Ewanco
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Keith Johnson
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Hugh McIntyre
- Re: Reply flags in RFC822 Subject headers Kim Wohlert