
	Where results make sense

Topic: RFC 2156

Related Topics

ABBA

Wayanad

Sened

Spearow

Welsh language

Gzhatsk

Mosiah

Protoss

Malvern, Iowa

Sherborne

Wolfe Tone

Camp David Accords

Biz Markie

Leavittsburg, Ohio

Communications in Turkey

In the News (Thu 10 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	RFC 2156 (rfc2156) - MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay): Mapping b
		RFC 822 redirection (e.g., aliasing) is regarded as an informal redirection mechanism, beyond the scope of this control.
		RFC 822 Structured text is defined according to the Extended Backus Naur Form (EBNF) defined in Section 2 of RFC 822 [16].
		RFC 987 backwards compatibility The mapping defined here is different to that used in RFC 987, as the RFC 987 mapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases.
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc2156.html (15924 words)

	RFC 2156 - (rfc2156) - MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME
		Kille Standards Track [Page 42] RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 If an address of this syntax is parsed, and a country value is present, but no ADMD, the string shall be interpreted as if an ADMD value of single space had been specified.
		Kille Standards Track [Page 50] RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Further, it is recommended that all other attributes are generated according to this ordering, so that all attributes so encoded follow a consistent hierarchy.
		Kille Standards Track [Page 54] RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 SMTP Recipient As the RFC 822 and X.400 worlds are in principle fully connected, there is no technical reason for this situation to occur.
	www.rfcsearch.org /rfcview/RFC/2156.html (14078 words)

	RFC 2156 Page 8 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		Some RFC - 822 networks may wish to use X.400 as an interconnection mechanism (typically for policy reasons), and this is fully supported.
		Where an X.400 message transfers to RFC - 822 and then back to X.400, there is no expectation of X.400 services which do not have an equivalent service in standard RFC - 822 being preserved - although this may be possible in some cases.
		Support of X.400 (1984) The MIXER definition is based on the initial specification of RFC 987 and in its addendum RFC - 1026, which defined a mapping between X.400(1984) and RFC - 822.
	dns.org.pl /rfc/rfc-2156/?page=8 (385 words)

	The Internet Report
		This RFC is a commentary on the difficulty of deciding upon an acceptably distinctive hostname for one's computer, a problem which grows in direct proportion to the logarithmically increasing size of the Internet.
		Although HTML [RFC 1866] was designed within the context of MIME, more than the specification of HTML as defined in RFC 1866 is needed for two electronic mail user agents to be able to interoperate usingHTML as a document format.
		The differences between this memo and RFC 1583 are explained inAppendix G. All differences are backward-compatible in nature.Implementations of this memo and of RFC 1583 will interoperate.
	ietfreport.isoc.org /rfc2100-2199.html (6546 words)

	[No title]
		Standards Track [Page 40] RFC 2165 Service Location Protocol June 1997 LANGUAGE_NOT_SUPPORTED A SA or DA returns this when a request is received from a UA which is in a language for which there is no registered Service Information and the request arrived with the Monolingual bit set.
		Standards Track [Page 46] RFC 2165 Service Location Protocol June 1997 agent distributing URLs for services in a protected scope will reject any registrations or deregistrations for service agents which cannot provide cryptographically strong authentication to prove their authorization to provide the services.
		Standards Track [Page 47] RFC 2165 Service Location Protocol June 1997 If, on the other hand, attribute information is included in the Service Deregistration request, a separate Service Deregistration of selected attributes must be undertaken in each language in which service information has been provided to the DA by a Service Agent.
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc2165.txt (15830 words)

	RFC 2156 (rfc2156)
		RFC 822 gateway and is therefore given a separate chapter.
		domain-syntax = alphanum [ alphanumhyphen alphanum ] alphanum = alphanumhyphen = Although RFC* 822 allows for a more general syntax, this restricted syntax is used in MIXER as it is the one chosen by the various domain service administrations.
		This is done by taking MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name, and generating an SMTP recipient according to the basic ORAddress Kille Standards Track [Page 63] RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 mapping, discarding MTS.ORName.directory-name if present.
	www.cse.ohio-state.edu /cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2156.html (15015 words)

	[No title]
		Introduced by RFC 1327 and subsequently changed by RFC 2156 to avoid confusion with MIME defined fields.
		Introduced by RFC 1327 and subsequently renamed by RFC 2156 to 'Supersedes'.
		Proposed for use with RFC 2156 (MIXER) [10] and RFC 3801 (VPIM) [14].
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/rfc4021.txt (5644 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)