Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner From: tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 PL10 Message-ID: <7772@cdis-1.uucp> Date: 4 Dec 89 18:34:45 GMT References: <91266@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> Organization: CDI-DLD Lines: 14 In article , zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: ) If you read down a few more paragraphs, you find that RFC976 says "we ) recommend that any host that accepts hybrid addresses apply the ) (a!b)@c.d interpretation". Seems pretty clear. Very clear indeed. They are saying that there is no requirement that it be done either way. That is the difference between a recommendation and a requirement. Given that it's only a recommendation, and that RFC976 admits that some hosts can't do it that way, it would seem silly to classify failure to do it that way as a "bug" needing "fixing". -- Mulroney: "Cut trains. Drive in | {bpa,uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner Canada. We need the acid rain." | {attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner