Re: draft-resnick-2822upd-02 and Netnews

Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> This really underscores the difference between making changes that "fix"
>> RFC2822, versus adding the (new) the goal of compatibility with other
>> messaging standards.
>>
>> The former is required for the current exercise.  But why is the latter?
> 
> Rather than impeding the 822 update, it would probably be more useful to
> write a document which tersely describes compatibility problems between
> 822 and usefor and how to generate messages that stay within the common
> subset.


Yup.

It would have been great to have the similar messaging environments use the 
same format standards, but that didn't happen.

The fact that they remain similar does not change the fact that this is really 
a gatewaying task that needs its own gateway mapping specification, just as 
was done for x.400.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net