>> we might consider to also extend irt with the abuse-mailbox and
>> allow abuse-c to refer to an irt object ?
>
>why not remove irt entirely? it is not needed given this proposal.
Sorry, I have to disagree.
The abuse / abuse-c /abuse-mailbox proposal(s) as being discussed will
(maybe - maybe not) solve a different problem...
>"less is more." -- mies van der rohe
and nothing is best?
>randy
Wilfried.
