Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:32, John Rudd wrote:
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).
If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
wouldn't be any MUST's.
There is absolutely no logic to your statement.
A MUST is _always_ a requirement. Even if a SHOULD is sometimes treated
as a requirement for service (as that RFC clearly states) it does not
displace the need for MUSTS, because a SHOULD is _not_ _always_ a
requirement for service.
And, there is nothing in the definition of the RFC use of the term
"SHOULD" which says you MUST NOT treat a SHOULD as a requirement for
service. The most you can say is that making a SHOULD a requirement for
service is as cautionary to those who choose deny service on a SHOULD as
it is cautionary to those who would choose to not adhere to the SHOULD.
In this specific case, the SHOULD outlines the consequence of not
adhering to the SHOULD. The purpose of a SHOULD is to allow deviation
but to caution those who would do so. By making it a requirement for
service, the implementers of that policy are applying those
consequences. They are not abusing the purpose of a SHOULD, confusing
it with a MUST, nor obsoleting the concept of a MUST. To suggest so is
nonsense.
_______________________________________________
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
