Re: [Exim] CNAME and recipient rewriting

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Hirling Endre wrote:

> I can't find it in 2821 either but I'm not sure what 'updates' in RFCs
> mean, so I can't be sure about 2821 invalidating the paragraph below
> from 1123.

The intention certainly was that everything in 1123 to do with email was
to be replaced by 2821/2822. They can't just "obsolete" 1123 because
it's full of non-mail stuff.

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@???      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.