Noel Jones:
> On 2/13/2014 11:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:17:14PM +0800, King Cao wrote:
> >
> >> *reject_unknown_recipient_domain*Reject the request when Postfix is not
> >> final destination for the recipient domain, and the RCPT TO domain has 1)
> >> *no
> >> DNS A or MX record* or 2) .......
> >
> > English is not symbolic logic, but the intent is clear:
> >
> > 1. no (MX or A record)
> >
> > rather than:
> >
> > 2. no MX or no A record.
> >
> > By De Morgan's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws)
> > the first is also:
> >
> > 3. no MX and no A record.
> >
> > interpretation "2" seems too implausible to warrant correcting the
> > document, but if others feel it is ambiguous and someone sends a
> > patch for proto/postconf.proto that improves the clarity of the
> > text, it should be cheap enough to adopt it.
>
> s/or/nor/
Did you mean: neither A nor MX record.
Clarity wins with "no MX and no address record."
Wietse
