On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 23:58, John Rudd wrote: > > > > 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.
It is saying that there are circumstances other than RFC requirement compliance that can cause interoperability problems - like sites that add their own arbitrary requirements. That's just a realistic observation. You can't use that to say any RFC justifies these additional requirements even though the SHOULDs give best practices to work around them. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
