1.1 --- a/discussion.roff	Thu Jul 12 00:56:47 2012 +0200
     1.2 +++ b/discussion.roff	Thu Jul 12 01:07:44 2012 +0200
     1.3 @@ -217,10 +217,7 @@
     1.4  separate projects then they should be separated.
     1.5  In my opinion, this is the case here.
     1.6  The RFCs propose this separation by clearly distinguishing the different
     1.7 -mail handling tasks.
     1.8 -.[
     1.9 -rfc 821
    1.10 -.]
    1.11 +mail handling tasks [RFC\|821].
    1.12  The small interfaces between the mail agents support the separation.
    1.13  .P
    1.14  Email once had been small and simple.
    1.15 @@ -1351,10 +1348,7 @@
    1.16  .Sw -[no]check
    1.17  switches were removed together with the support for
    1.18  .Hd Content-MD5
    1.19 -header fields.
    1.20 -.[
    1.21 -rfc 1864
    1.22 -.]
    1.23 +header fields [RFC\|1864].
    1.24  .Ci 31dc797eb5178970d68962ca8939da3fd9a8efda
    1.25  (cf. Sec.
    1.26  .Cf content-md5 )
    1.27 @@ -1928,7 +1922,7 @@
    1.28  .H2 "Attachments
    1.29  .P
    1.30  The mind model of email attachments is unrelated to MIME.
    1.31 -Although the MIME RFCs (2045 through 2049) define the technical
    1.32 +Although the MIME RFCs [RFC\|2045\(enRFC\|2049] define the technical
    1.33  requirements for having attachments, they do not mention the word
    1.34  attachment.
    1.35  Instead of attachments, MIME talks about ``multi-part message bodies''