Danny Angus wrote:
As far as I understand it (and I wrote the compiance statement on
http://james.apache.org/server/design_objectives.html) the position
need not change.
It is acceptable for us to build non-compliant behaviour into James to
support interoperability with "broken" implementations. However it
should always be disabled by default so that operators make a
conscious decision to enable non-compliant behaviour.
The argument against non-compliance is that as increasingly more
non-compliant behaviours become accepted they enforce an undocumented
"dark" standard which implementors will struggle to understand and
implement. directly countering the purpose of published
interoperability standards.
d.
Wow, I moved around website documents plenty of times and I never read
it. It's a shame!
Btw I fully agree with the objectives described there.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
