On 2/14/2014 7:57 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Noel Jones: >> On 2/13/2014 11:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:17:14PM +0800, King Cao wrote: >>> >>>> *reject_unknown_recipient_domain*Reject the request when Postfix is not >>>> final destination for the recipient domain, and the RCPT TO domain has 1) >>>> *no >>>> DNS A or MX record* or 2) ....... >>> >>> English is not symbolic logic, but the intent is clear: >>> >>> 1. no (MX or A record) >>> >>> rather than: >>> >>> 2. no MX or no A record. >>> >>> By De Morgan's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws) >>> the first is also: >>> >>> 3. no MX and no A record. >>> >>> interpretation "2" seems too implausible to warrant correcting the >>> document, but if others feel it is ambiguous and someone sends a >>> patch for proto/postconf.proto that improves the clarity of the >>> text, it should be cheap enough to adopt it. >> >> s/or/nor/ > > Did you mean: neither A nor MX record. > > Clarity wins with "no MX and no address record." > > Wietse >
Yes, I was thinking neither/nor, but "no MX and no address record." is better. We've obviously spent too much time discussing this already. -- Noel Jones
