docs/master
diff discussion.roff @ 199:5cd9bacdfcd3
Updated RFCs.
author | markus schnalke <meillo@marmaro.de> |
---|---|
date | Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:07:44 +0200 |
parents | 05a243dffaca |
children | c299ed65d015 |
line diff
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''