Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
By "strict interpretation", I mean "enforce all of these as MUST
directives, instead of mere SHOULD directives/suggestions".
I disagree with this statement but would like to have you review the
code I'm about to post. RFC's use MUST/SHOULD on purpose and you must
not reinterpet the should's as must's just because you like it better ;-)
Actually, given what SHOULD means (that those who fail to obey them
should fully consider the consequences of that action), and the text of
the RFC that I quoted (which warns that failure to comply could result
in service rejections), it's perfectly reasonable for a site to make
those recommendations into requirements for service (which is all I was
indicating).
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
