From: Ralph Babel (rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 14:07:27 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> The specified behavior for Followup-To does not come even
>> remotely close to meeting that standard. There are quite
>> frequently good reasons to ignore Followup-To altogether.
>
> The noises I am hearing seem to indicate
> that only Russ holds that view.
Please consult
<URL:http://www.landfield.com/usefor/2000/Nov/0038.html>
<URL:http://www.landfield.com/usefor/2000/Nov/0063.html>
for more information.
Thank you.
> The rest would like some manual intervention
> before Followup-To is overridden.
++num_appeal_items;
| [MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc.] must not be used to try to
| impose a particular method on implementors where the
| method is not required for interoperability.
> I think we need some more people to play.
I think we need an editor who can read.