On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also > > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the > > stated purpose of those fields. As such it is the obvious, and should > > be preferred, way to use them on replies. Using the fields the way > > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least > > surprise. > > Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody > else?
In general? Of course. But not in this particular context, no. The RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the only "least surprising" that matters. [There is of course the case where the spec is logically inconsistent with itself. That's another matter.] -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpgaNZ8kt94D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
