On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, John Hall wrote: > "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The Outlook missing-Message-Id problem really needs to be fixed because > > in this case the RFCs are very clear that 'SHOULD' means 'SHALL.' > > It means "that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to > ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course".
The fact that the RFCs do not require a msg-id should stop SA from creating a rule that enforces a *non-requirement*. If the RFC was worded differently then this would be a different matter entirely. It doesn't however and we shouldn't create our own standards to hold others accountable to. Justin
