From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22022 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 17:04:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 22012 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 17:04:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com (HELO gundega.hpl.hp.com) (192.6.19.190) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:04:48 +0000 Received: from masterns.hpl.hp.com (masterns.hpl.hp.com [15.0.48.4]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id n24H4aMl003748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:04:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from orees.hpl.hp.com (orees.hpl.hp.com [16.25.175.183]) by masterns.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id n24H4YYN018807 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:04:35 -0800 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:04:00 -0000 From: Owen Rees To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Subject: Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin@cygwin postings Message-ID: <0E63A1E9C219A9822515737A@orees.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <49AEAECD.5030506@gmail.com> References: <49ADA916.40700@columbus.rr.com> <49ADBA0D.6040405@gmail.com> <49ADEF5E.3060804@columbus.rr.com> <49ADF5B5.5000102@gmail.com> <49AE0F52.1060006@columbus.rr.com> <49AE6F03.5040003@gmail.com> <980E7CF9434CB68895B336D3@orees.hpl.hp.com> <49AEAECD.5030506@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner-ID: n24H4aMl003748 X-HPL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HPL-MailScanner-From: owen.rees@hp.com X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List X-SW-Source: 2009-q1/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote: > Yes, you're right. Looking at the history, it's never made it to the > status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually > one stage more advanced than an RFC): > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup- > to-00.txt > To quote RFC2026: 2.2 Internet-Drafts During the development of a specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating the process of review and revision. An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. At any time, an Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. ******************************************************** * * * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * * with an Internet-Draft. * * * ******************************************************** That, and the rest of RFC2026 makes it clear that a "internet draft" has lower status than an RFC - it is typically a proposal that may eventually turn into an RFC. On the subject of expiry: draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt Expires: May 1998 It has not been followed up for over 10 years so I think that indicates the status of the proposal as far as the IETF process is concerned. -- Owen Rees; speaking personally, and not on behalf of HP. ======================================================== Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN