If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
wouldn't be any MUST's.
There is absolutely no logic to your statement.
All of your points seem "correct" and they are a better way of interpreting
the RFC that I agree with. I am, unfortunately, telling you that they state
must/should on purpose and they really do mean different things in
RFC-speak. However, you are wrong in stating "And, there is nothing in the
definition of the RFC use of the term "SHOULD" which says you MUST NOT treat
a SHOULD as a requirement for
service".
There is, naturally, an RFC about this...
http://rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/2119/index.html
Specifically: http://rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/2119/chapter3.html
Anyway, really not trying to beat you up about this. It surprises a lot of
people doing RFCs and I wish they could be interpreted the way I want
sometimes too!
Regards,
KAM
_______________________________________________
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
