Internet Draft: Mailing Lists and Internationalized R. Gellens
Email Addresses Qualcomm
Document: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-02.txt E. Chung
Expires: January 2008 Afilias
July 2007
Mailing Lists and Internationalized Email Addresses
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of
Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
introduction of internationalized email addressing capabilities.
Different scenarios involving interaction between mailing lists and
internationalized email addresses are examined. Furthermore,
mailing list header fields are discussed.
Gellens & Chung [Page 1] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
This document makes specific recommendations on how mailing lists
should act in various situations.
Gellens & Chung [Page 2] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
Table of Contents
1 Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Scenarios Involving Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Pure Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Mixed Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Capabilities and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 List Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 List Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7 Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A: Changes from Previous Version . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14 Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1
1 Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
2 Introduction
Mailing lists are an important part of email usage and collaborative
communications. The introduction of internationalized email
addresses affects mailing lists in three main areas: (1) transport
(receiving and sending messages); (2) message headers of received
and retransmitted messages; and (3) mailing list operational
policies.
A mailing list is a mechanism whereby a message may be distributed
to multiple recipients by sending to one address. An agent
(typically not a human being) at that single address receives the
message and then causes the message to be redistributed to a list of
recipients. This agent sets the envelope return address of the
redistributed message to a different address from that of the
original message. Using a different envelope return address
(reverse-path) directs error (and other automatically generated)
messages to an error handling address associated with the mailing
list. (This avoids having error and other automatic messages go to
Gellens & Chung [Page 3] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
the original sender, who typically doesn't control the list and
hence can't do anything about them.)
In most cases, the mailing list agent redistributes a received
message to its subscribers as a new message, that is, conceptually
it uses message submission [submit] (as did the sender of the
original message). The exception, where the mailing list is not a
separate agent that receives and redistributes messages in separate
transactions, but is instead an expansion step within an SMTP
transaction where one local address expands to multiple local or
non-local addresses, is out of scope for this document.
Some mailing lists alter the message header, while others do not. A
number of standardized list-related header fields have been defined,
and many lists add one or more of these headers. Separate from
these standardized list-specific header fields, and despite a
history of interoperability problems from doing so, some lists alter
or add header fields in an attempt to control where replies are
sent. Such lists typically add or replace the "Reply-To" field and
some add or replace the "Sender" field. Poorly-behaved lists may
alter or replace other fields, including "From".
Among these list-specific header fields are those specified in
RFC2369 -- The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List
Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields [List-*]
and RFC2919 -- List-Id: A Structured Field and Namespace for the
Identification of Mailing Lists [List-ID]. For more information,
see Section 5.
While the mail transport protocol does not differ between regular
email recipients and mailing list recipients, lists have special
considerations with internationalized email addresses because they
retransmit messages composed by other agents to potentially many
recipients. Discussion of the different scenarios involving mailing
lists and internationalized email addresses is in Section 3.
There are considerations for internationalized email addresses in
the envelope as well as header fields of redistributed messages. In
particular, an internationalized message cannot be downgraded unless
envelope addresses are in ASCII (which includes use of ALT-ADDRESS).
With mailing lists, there are two different types of considerations:
first, the purely technical ones involving message handling, error
cases, downgrades, and the like, and second, those that arise from
the fact that humans use mailing lists to communicate. As an
example of the first, mailing lists might choose to reject all
messages from internationalized addresses that lack an alt-address,
or even all internationalized messages that can not be downgraded.
As an example of the second, a user who sends a message to a list
Gellens & Chung [Page 4] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
often is unaware of the list membership. In particular, the user
often doesn't know if the members are i18mail users or not, and
often neither the original sender nor the recipients personally know
each other. As a consequence of this, remedies that may be readily
available for one-to-one communication might not be appropriate when
dealing with mailing lists. For example, if a user sends a message
which is undeliverable, normally the telephone, instant messaging,
or other forms of communication are available to obtain a working
address. With mailing lists, the users may not have any recourse.
Of course, with mailing lists, the original sender usually does not
know if the message was successfully received by any list members,
or if it was undeliverable to some.
Conceptually, a mailing list's internationalization can be divided
into three capabilities: First, does it have a UTF8 submission
address? Second, does it accept subscriptions to UTF8 addresses?
And third, does it accept UTF8SMTP messages? This is explored in
Section 4.
A brief discussion on some key considerations for mailing list
operation in an internationalized email address environment is
proposed in Section 6. This is followed by further discussions in
Section 7.
3 Scenarios Involving Mailing Lists
Expanding from Sections 2.3 ("i18mail mailing list") and 2.6 ("An
i18mail user sends to a mailing list with a mix of users") of the
Scenarios document [EAI- Scenarios], this section will provide an
overview of the different scenarios involving mailing lists and
internationalized email addresses.
What is worth noting is that generally (and exclusively within the
scope of this document) the original message is sent to a mailing
list as a completely separate and independent transaction from the
mailing list agent sending the retransmitted message to one or more
list recipients. In both cases, the message might have only one
recipient, or might have multiple recipients. That is, the original
message might be sent to additional recipients as well as the
mailing list agent, and the mailing list might choose to send the
retransmitted message to each list recipient in a separate message
submission transaction, or might choose to include multiple
recipients per transaction. (Often, mailing lists are constructed to
work in cooperation with, rather than include the functionality of,
a message submission server, and hence the list transmits to a
single submission server one copy of the retransmitted message, with
all list recipients specified in the SMTP envelope. The submission
server then decides which recipients to include in which
Gellens & Chung [Page 5] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
transaction.)
[[[EDITOR'S NOTE: Is there any value to the text starting here?]]]
The following diagram summarizes the conceptual working of a
mailing- list (Pure Case):
(b)
-----> User1@exmaple.tld
(a) / (c)
User1@example.tld ------> mailing@list.tld ------> User2@example.tld
\ (d)
-----> ...
As observed above, the mail transport transactions (a), (b), (c) and
(d) all involves two parties, that is: 1. The mailing list agent;
and, 2. The original author / subscriber. These scenarios are
essentially the same as those already described in Sections 2.1 and
2.4 of the Scenarios document [EAI-Scenarios].
Multiple recipients are involved when additional addresses are
included (Mixed Case):
-----> User1@exmaple.tld
(a) /
User1@example.tld ---+--> mailing@list.tld ------> User2@example.tld
| ^ \ (d)
| | -----> ...
| | |
v | (e) |
cc@example.tld <-----+-------------(reply)--+
Under this situation, scenarios (a) and (e) resemble the situations
already described in Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the Scenarios document
[EAI-Scenarios]. More specific discussions based on these two
general cases are included below.
3.1 Pure Case Scenarios
In the Pure Case described above, the following are possible for
(a):
User1@example.tld mailing@list.tld
(1) ASCII ASCII
(2) non-ASCII ASCII
Gellens & Chung [Page 6] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
(3) ASCII non-ASCII
(4) non-ASCII non-ASCII
Among this set, (1) is simply the conventional case without
involving any internationalized email address. (2) and (3) are
scenarios described in Section 2.4 -- One i18nmail user sends to one
ASCII user -- of the Scenarios document, whereas (4) is described in
Section 2.1 -- Two i18nmail users [EAI-Scenarios].
For (d) -- generalizing (b) and (c) -- it may be branched further
where: (i) Mailing list contains only ASCII email addresses (ii)
Mailing list contains at least one internationalized email address
[[[EDITOR'S NOTE: Is there any value to the text ending here?]]]
The retransmitted message sent by the mailing list to its
subscribers might need to be downgraded [EAI-Downgrade]. In order
for a downgrade to be possible, the return path set by the mailing
list agent must be an ASCII address or have ALT-ADDRESS specified.
list (and/or its MTA) must therefore have the alt-address. In
general, it may be prudent for mailing list operators to pre-obtain
an alt-address for all its internationalized member addresses. This
will ensure that mailing list transactions within members will be
able to be delivered and replied to. Further discussion on mailing
list policy considerations is included in section 6 of this
document.
In the specific case where a non-member with an internationalized
email address is sending to a mailing list, and that mailing list is
UTF8SMTP-aware, and the path to a constituent member calls for a
downgrade, the mailing list (and/or its MTA) may not have the alt-
address of the non-member's internationalized email address,
therefore failing to deliver the message to some members. To
protect against this, a UTF8SMTP-aware mailing list might prefer to
reject submissions from internationalized email addresses that lack
an alt-address.
(Note that in the situation is not unique to mailing lists. Mail
relays that are UTF8SMTP- aware will potentially encounter the same
situation.) Further discussions are included in section 7 of this
document.
[[[EDITOR'S NOTE: Is there any value to the text starting here?]]]
3.2 Mixed Case Scenarios
Gellens & Chung [Page 7] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
The Mixed Case scenarios are essentially a combination of the
discussion in section 3.1 above, plus those described in Section
3.2 -- Three i18nmail users -- and, Section 2.5 -- An i18mail user
sends to one ascii user and one i18nmail user -- of the Scenarios
[EAI- Scenarios] document.
Similar issues arise with regards to members versus non-members,
especially non-members with an internationalized email address, as
discussed in the above section.
[[[EDITOR'S NOTE: Is there any value to the text ending here?]]]
4 Capabilities and Requirements
There are three primary internationalization capabilities of mailing
lists: First, does it have a UTF8 submission address? Second, does
it allow subscriptions from UTF8 addresses? And third, does it
accept UTF8SMTP messages?
In theory, any list can support any combination of these. In
practice, only some offer any benefit. For example, neither
allowing UTF8 addresses to subscribe, nor accepting UTF8SMTP
messages, makes much sense without the other (an all-ASCII address
might or might not be capable of receiving UTF8SMTP messages, but a
UTF8 address of necessity needs to accept UTF8SMTP messages).
Likewise, there is no real benefit to a list in using a UTF8
submission address unless it also accepts UTF8SMTP messages and
permits UTF8 addresses to subscribe.
However, requirements for lists can be discussed separately for each
of the three capabilities.
1. If the list uses a UTF8 submission address, it SHOULD specify an
alt-address for it. Clearly, it needs to sit behind a
UTF8SMTP-enabled final-delivery SMTP server and delivery agent.
The list's return-path address is usually separate from its
submission address (so that delivery reports and other
automatically-generated messages are not sent to the submission
address). For reliability in receiving delivery status
notifications, a list MAY choose to use an all-ASCII return-path
even if it uses a UTF8 submission address. If the list does use a
UTF8 return path, it MUST specify an alt-address (or else there is a
high risk of being unable to receive non-delivery reports).
Gellens & Chung [Page 8] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
It follows that if a list uses a UTF8 submission (or return-path)
address, then its MSA needs to support UTF8SMTP.
There are also implications for the List-* headers (see below).
2. If it allows UTF8 addresses to subscribe, it MAY require an
alt-address to be specified for each UTF8 subscriber.
Naturally, if it permits UTF8 addresses to subscribe, it needs a
mechanism to accept subscription requests from such addresses
(preferably specified in the form <utf8@utf8<ascii@ascii>>).
Likewise, its MSA needs to support UTF8SMTP.
3. If it accepts UTF8SMTP messages, its MSA needs to support
UTF8SMTP.
5 List Header Fields
A number of header fields specifically for mailing lists have been
introduced in RFC2369 and RFC2919. These include, for example:
List-Id: List Header Mailing List <list-header.nisto.com>
List-Help: <mailto:list@host.com?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:list@host.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:list@host.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:list@host.com>
List-Owner: <mailto:listmom@host.com> (Contact Person for Help)
List-Archive: <mailto:archive@host.com?subject=index%20list>
As described in RFC2369, "The contents of the list header fields
mostly consist of angle-bracket ('<', '>') enclosed URLs, with
internal whitespace being ignored." [List-*] Whereas RFC2919
specifies that, "The list identifier will, in most cases, appear
like a host name in a domain of the list owner." [List-ID]
These mailing list header fields contain URLs. The most common
schemes are generally HTTP, HTTPS, mailto, and FTP. These header
fields will need to be extended to support UTF8 addresses. Except
for mailto, there are no EAI-specific considerations, since these
URLs can use RFC3987 "Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI)"
[IRI]. Note that mailto is being updated in a separate effort
(outside of EAI), in [mailto-bis].
The same mechanism should be used for these fields as with other
fields specifically discussed in the UTF8-Headers document
[EAI-UTF8Headers]. Generally therefore, for fields that contain an
internationalized email address, it is preferable for it to be
expressed as a UTF8 string.
Gellens & Chung [Page 9] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
[[[EDITOR'S NOTE: Does RFC 2369 need to be updated to permit the
use of IRIs?]]]
Downgrading provisions should also follow the mechanism in the
downgrading document [EAI-Downgrade]. However, special provisions
may be helpful for list-specific headers. In particular, when a
List-* header contains a UTF8 mailto followed by an ASCII mailto, it
may be advisable to copy and preserve the original header as usual,
but also edit the header to remove the UTF8 address. [[[EDITOR'S
NOTE: This needs to be vetted by the eai list, and if agreed, the
eai-downgrade document adjusted, and if not, deleted from here.]]]
For mailto URIs, an additional consideration is how to include an
alternative ASCII address (alt-address) for a UTF8 address. The
most consistent approach is to extend mailto to permit the same
syntax for alt-address as is used in address header fields, that is,
<utf8@utf8 <asciI@ascii>>. Until this is done, the existing ability
to specify multiple URLs within each List-* header field provides a
solution.
[List-*] says:
A list of multiple, alternate, URLs MAY be specified by a comma-
separated list of angle-bracket enclosed URLs. The URLs have
order of preference from left to right. The client application
should use the left most protocol that it supports, or knows how
to access by a separate application.
When a UTF8 mailto is used in a List-* header field, an alt-address,
if available, SHOULD immediately follow it.
This is further discussed in Section 7.
6 List Management
Given the need potentially to deal with non-UTF8SMTP-aware MTAs in
the path of delivery for different members, it is advisable that
mailing list operators obtain an alt-address from each member with
an internationalized email address before adding the member.
[[[EDITOR's NOTE: This contradicts an assumption that the group has
been operating under that the sender obviously won't use UTF8SMTP
unless his or her MSA and outbound MTAs support it, the recipient
won't use a UTF8 address unless his or her final-delivery MTA and
delivery agent support UTF8SMTP, and hence downgrading is unlikely
in the normal case of UTF8SMTP sender to UTF8SMTP recipient.
Accordingly, perhaps this requirement should be deleted or
weakened.]]]
Gellens & Chung [Page 10] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
In consideration for consistent delivery to all members in a
mailing- list, a mailing list may want to consider rejecting (or
otherwise obtaining alt-address from) a non-member who is
interacting with the mailing list from an internationalized email
address without specifying an alt-address. This is further
discussed in Section 7.
It is important that the final delivery MTA and delivery agent not
deliver internationalized messages to a mailing list that is not
capable of receiving and processing them. Such messages MUST be
downgraded or rejected unless the list supports internationalized
email.
Since a mailing list's MSA needs to support UTF8SMTP in order for it
to send internationalized messages (including otherwise ASCII
messages to UTF8 addresses), a list MUST NOT accept subscriptions
from UTF8 addresses nor accept UTF8SMTP messages unless its MSA
supports UTF8SMTP or it is prepared and able to downgrade such
messages.
7 Further Discussion
While mailing lists do not create a significant additional burden to
the deployment of internationalized email address functionalities,
there are some specific areas that need to be considered when the
operator of a mailing list or of a final delivery MTA that serves a
mailing list upgrades to internationalized mail.
Mailing lists face additional complexity since they redistribute
messages composed by other agents. Hence, they may be asked to
accept a message with non-ASCII headers composed by a UTF8SMTP-aware
user agent, and redistribute it to i18mail and non-i18mail users via
systems that are not UTF8SMTP-aware.
1. Obtaining Downgrade Information -- for a mailing list, or mail
relay server for that matter, that is UTF8SMTP-aware, receiving mail
from an internationalized email address, the alt-address is not
required from the sending MTA for the transport to be complete.
Thereupon when the mailing list retransmits the message to its
subscribers, it may encounter paths where a downgrade is called for.
In order to mitigate this situation, the mailing list might perhaps
decide to reject all incoming mail from an internationalized email
address that lacks an alt-address. However, note that in general,
downgrades are not expected to be the normal case.
Gellens & Chung [Page 11] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
2. Downgrading Considerations for mailto URLs -- UTF8 addresses in
mailto links in List-* headers will be easier to downgrade if they
contain an alt-address.
8 IANA Considerations
None.
9 Security Considerations
Security considerations are discussed in the Framework document
[EAI-Framework].
10 Acknowledgments
TBD.
11 Normative References
[EAI-Framework] J. Klensin and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", draft-ietf-eai-framework-00.txt, May 24,
2006
[EAI-Scenarios] H. Alvestrand, "Internationalized Email Addresses:
Scenarios",draft-ietf-eai-scenarios-00.txt , May 12, 2006
[EAI-SMTPEXT] J. Yao and W. Mao, "SMTP extension for
internationalized email address", draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-00.txt, May
12, 2006
[EAI-UTF8Headers] J. Yeh, "Internationalized Email Headers", draft-
ietf-eai-utf8headers-00.txt, May 30, 2006
[EAI-Downgrade] Y. YONEYA and K. Fujiwara, "Downgrading mechanism
for Internationalized eMail Address (IMA)",
draft-ietf-eai-downgrade- 00.txt, May 26, 2006
12 Informative References
[mailto-bis] M. Duerst and L. Masinter, "The mailto URI scheme",
draft-duerst-mailto-bis-xx (work in progress).
Gellens & Chung [Page 12] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
[List-*] G. Neufeld and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for
Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header
Fields", July 1998
[List-ID] R. Chandhok and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists", March 2001
[IRI] M. Duerst and M. Suignard,"Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", January 2005
13 Author's Address
Randall Gellens
QUALCOMM Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
rg+ietf@qualcomm.com
Edmon Chung
Afilias
Suite 204, 4141 Yonge Street,
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M2P 2A8
edmon@afilias.info
Appendix A: Changes from Previous Version
THIS SECTION TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.
Changes made from version -01 to -02:
o Significant changes throughout the document. Sorry.
Changes made from version -00 to -01:
o Fixed SMTP envelope versus message header confusion.
o Fixed erroneous mailing list operation text.
o Removed references to ATOMIC.
o Removed unneeded scenarios.
o Added discussion of human considerations which arise with lists.
o Fixed some typos.
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
Gellens & Chung [Page 13] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
14 Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Gellens & Chung [Page 14] Expires January 2008
Internet Draft Mailing Lists and i18mail Addresses July 2007
Gellens & Chung [Page 15] Expires January 2008
Datatracker
draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-02
Internet-Draft
