nanog mailing list archives
[admin] Re: SMTP addresses in <>
From: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:33:05 -0500
Folks, Let's bring this one to closure. The authors question is answered and this is backing itself into an endless thread with arguments better suited for the IETF vs. NANOG. Best Regards, Martin Hannigan NANOG Mailing List Committee On Jan 4, 2008 1:02 PM, Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 5:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <andrew () ca afilias info> wrote:I completely agree. If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't have an email problem at all. ABecause....we wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting worldwide interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on strict validation...
Current thread:
- Re: SMTP addresses in <>, (continued)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Donald Stahl (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Sean Donelan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Randy Bush (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Donald Stahl (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Joe Greco (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> William Herrin (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Joe Greco (Jan 07)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Andrew Sullivan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Alexander Harrowell (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Sean Figgins (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Greg Skinner (Jan 04)
- [admin] Re: SMTP addresses in <> Martin Hannigan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Randy Bush (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Jeff Kell (Jan 04)