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''

     2.1 --- a/preface.roff	Thu Jul 12 00:56:47 2012 +0200
     2.2 +++ b/preface.roff	Thu Jul 12 01:07:44 2012 +0200
     2.3 @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@
     2.4  The reader is expected to know the format of email messages and
     2.5  the structure of email transfer systems, at least on a basic level.
     2.6  It's advisable to have cross-read RFC\|821 and RFC\|822.
     2.7 -Furthermore, basic understanding of MIME (RFC\|2045\(en2049)
     2.8 +Furthermore, basic understanding of MIME [RFC\|2045\(enRFC\|2049]
     2.9  is good to have.
    2.10  The Wikipedia provides good introduction-level information about email.
    2.11  .[
    2.12 @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@
    2.13  .Pn cat ,
    2.14  which is in section one of the Unix manual.
    2.15  Internet technologies are specified by \fIRequests for Comments\fP (RFCs).
    2.16 -Throughout the document, they are referenced as ``RFC\|821''.
    2.17 +Throughout the document, they are referenced similar to ``RFC\|821''.
    2.18  A list of relevant RFCs is located at the end of the document.
    2.19  Literature is cited in backets, such as
    2.20  .[ ``[

     3.1 --- a/rfcs.roff	Thu Jul 12 00:56:47 2012 +0200
     3.2 +++ b/rfcs.roff	Thu Jul 12 01:07:44 2012 +0200
     3.3 @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@
     3.4  .I "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages",
     3.5  August 1982.
     3.6  
     3.7 +.IP RFC\|1864
     3.8 +.I "The Content-MD5 Header Field",
     3.9 +October 1995.
    3.10 +
    3.11  .IP RFC\|2045
    3.12  .I "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One:\
    3.13  	Format of Internet Message Bodies" ,
    3.14 @@ -47,3 +51,15 @@
    3.15  	Conformance Criteria and Examples" ,
    3.16  November 1996.
    3.17  
    3.18 +.IP RFC\|2822
    3.19 +.I "Internet Message Format",
    3.20 +April 2001.
    3.21 +
    3.22 +.IP RFC\|3156
    3.23 +.I "MIME Security with OpenPGP",
    3.24 +August 2001.
    3.25 +
    3.26 +.IP RFC\|4880
    3.27 +.I "OpenPGP Message Format",
    3.28 +November 2007.
    3.29 +