On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:32, John Rudd wrote: > Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > > >> By "strict interpretation", I mean "enforce all of these as MUST > >> directives, instead of mere SHOULD directives/suggestions". > > > > I disagree with this statement but would like to have you review the > > code I'm about to post. RFC's use MUST/SHOULD on purpose and you must > > not reinterpet the should's as must's just because you like it better ;-) > > > Actually, given what SHOULD means (that those who fail to obey them > should fully consider the consequences of that action), and the text of > the RFC that I quoted (which warns that failure to comply could result > in service rejections), it's perfectly reasonable for a site to make > those recommendations into requirements for service (which is all I was > indicating).
If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there wouldn't be any MUST's. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
