Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 00:30, John Rudd wrote:
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.
A SHOULD is _never_ a requirement.
The section of RFC 1912 that I quoted directly contradicts you. It
lists a should, and outlines that the consequence for deviating from the
should may be denial of service. Therefore, it specifically states that
a should _may_be_ a requirement for service. Period.
_______________________________________________
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
