Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!caip!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!stef@nrtc-gremlin.ARPA
From: stef@nrtc-gremlin.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: A protocol for distribution lists and their managements
Message-ID: <2218@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 16:16:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2218
Posted: Mon Jul 14 16:16:52 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 23:57:25 EDT
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 20

I am glad to hear that you intend for the main force of the Distribution
List Standard to apply to the Looping Controls.  I suggest that you make
this more obvious, with the "Required Optional Facilties" set forth as
being suggestions only.  

As for your problem with 822 vs X.400, I suggest that you do what you
must to comply with X.400, and let that reflect into new RFC822 headers
to be dealt with in the ARPA-X.400 Gateway, which I believe will not
prsent any difficulties on the 822 side, or the X.400 side.

RFC822 is extensible (Good Idea) so lets use the built in extensibility
to solve the problem without requiring any changes to anyting on the
ARPA Internet side.  

If CCITT and ISO want to muck about and make it difficult to do things
at the P2 level, they are only hurting their own products and services.
I am constantly amazed at how the European CCITT/ISO folks seem to feel
a strong need to regulate what I put in my headers.

Stef