On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Malcolm Weir wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas von Hassel > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:17 AM > > [ Snip ] > > > I have to disagree, while it can be a pain in the butt to deal with > > disgruntled users and idiot admins, if we start slacking up on things > > like this we end up with a set of RFC's that don't mean squat to people > > ... > > Yet there is at least a viable school of thought that this particular > feature is not forbidden, just strongly discouraged, as in "should not" > compared with "must not" or "shall not". > > Now, whether or not *you* happen to agree with that reading is entirely > secondary to the issue of whether an admin, who may not be an idiot, does. > And if he does, you (and your disgruntled users) lose. > > Which leads to the inevitable observation that there are no prizes for > conformance to the RFC, but there are for getting the job done. The job of > a mail transfer agent is to transfer mail. Not pass a conformance test > based on a specific interpretation of an RFC...
Here here! That's the best summary I've read on this topic yet! -- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep. Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C and Python Code Gardener ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
