IPP> New IPP Scheme
don@lexmark.com Sat, 11 July 1998 21:13 UTC
Delivery-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:13:43 -0400
Return-Path: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1])
by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA25248
for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:13:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-1.mv.com [199.125.85.30])
by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA25044
for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com
(8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA14980 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>;
Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:09:17 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
RAA14415 for ipp-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:06:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: don@lexmark.com
Message-Id: <199807112106.AA28738@interlock2.lexmark.com>
X-Lotus-Fromdomain: LEXMARK@LEXMTA
To: ipp@pwg.org
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:00:16 -0400
Subject: IPP> New IPP Scheme
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org
After reading Keith's comments, I think I can capture the arguments on ipp: versus http: ....
- IPP> New IPP Scheme don
- IPP> New IPP Scheme don
- IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme Keith Moore