North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

[admin] Re: SMTP addresses in <>

  • From: Martin Hannigan
  • Date: Fri Jan 04 13:43:47 2008
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=A406IvbTP/9nOasXQbcwWxt1wHt8Q/3VKlT2nLj1Px0=; b=H8eVYHXeKBCTRCFQRUdcII5JACVMg8WABQNLLuW9k/CZcQbPTmcNG3eRxm8v7IyR7fjyCAYm+c23B4UWau2/dggCsxGBx7J8CGOaFod1kXgRDqdhvrrOHKrqrlTeeYvBRVX55JxCxmUTJljDp+16dp5zd5qL1J9b8HQakoKt9b0=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cTr1n4Ns4r4zZqXkJPWcMJzBu+IHT2LU2KgOwphieOKjgvCeRW8ZOpJwM288eyAMOjtU22NTHD8/Gb18rrBqMF5aZqvf03DstBriYHfF1+tiU3jEPa/jlZHGCkxhNfOa5DgOdFtKmLgEfJSssw5Mv44Bqb0a5t+Z6fBYuiY8XRo=

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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 5:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I completely agree.  If it weren't for that philosophy, we wouldn't
> > have an email problem at all.
> >
> > A
> >
>
> Because....we wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting worldwide
> interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on strict
> validation...
>
>