Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Not conforming to the RFC might not get you a prize, but it definitely > > has a price you'll have to pay some day or another. Widely accepting > > non-compliance will inevitably make non-compliance... well... widely > > acceptable. So we tend to lose standards compliance, ultimately > > harming interoperability. > > Mr. Weir is absolutely right. > > I challenge you to show me a software product that is 100% RFC compliant > *and* is usable without major caveats. Offhand, I can't think of any. > If courier were 100% RFC compliant it would not interoperate with *any* > other MTA, except itself perhaps. The RFCs are *guidelines* and could > be considered "strong suggestions".
Here, I think Daniel Higgins is absolutely right: Daniel Higgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the job of courier is to be an MTA alright.To do such a job requires > "best practice" rules (RFC). maybe we can't implement ALL of them, but > we sure should do our best to, or we'll end up even worse. It's not about *absolute* RFC compliance, it's about best-effort-compliance. Deliberately loosening the compliance is no good. > I find your position especially delicious considering your MUA of > choice: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) So in exactly what regard are the mails sent by me RFC-incompliant? I'm always willing to learn and better myself. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
