From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 10:55:24 CST
In <7tMUesKHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote on 05.01.01 in <200101051419.f05EJ9n03744@panix1.panix.com>:
>> For leaving out the .sig in followups, record me as another SHOULD.
>> (That's no change, but at least there's a majority.)
>"Ought". Perhaps. I tend to aim even lower than that.
So we are back to a dead heat :-( .
However, I have new reviewed my own position on this one (it was never
very strong) and changed my vote. So it will now be "Ought".
I have now edited the text of Section 4. For the record, the items that
have changed from my previous text are those numbered X7, X10, X12 (in
part) and X13.
I have also removed all reference to CCSs and CESs (no substantive change
there).
I need now to make a few further changes consequent on the new RFC status
for MESSFOR, and I shall then put around the full text for your
consideration.
And I shall now start on the Oughtification of Section 5.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5