Gotcha. I would suggest to build on Postel by saying: - if the RFC says "the [sender] MUST/MUST NOT" [blah blah]," we should strive to be lenient. - if the RFC says "the [receiver] MUST/MUST NOT [blah blah]," we should not be lenient.
Do you have these reversed? strict with sending and lienient with receiving?
No, just have my context poorly described. By sender I meant the remote machine and by receiver I meant James. Meaning, if the RFC says the remote machine MUST do something (or not something), James should still be lenient and not act like a policecop of the RFC. However, if the RFC says James MUST do something (or not something), then we must do something.
Again though, I think it's a solid idea, but in practice over time it I think it hurts the product and RFC.
I can't see how this hurts the product, and the RFC has already been destroyed many times over by real-world implementations. So relatively, I see any damage we're doing to the RFC at this point as inconsequential. :)
At this point I'd weigh the behavior of sendmail, qmail, exchange, and a few others more highly than what the RFC states.
-- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
