On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, [windows-1255] =F0=E5=F8 =E3=E0=E5=E3 wrote:
> MUST? No no one said that, David.
> No one can force you.
>=20
> You can either implement it or not. What's the catch here? Why not to do
> it?
Ok, you said:
1) "there's a clear ESMTP protocol to address exactly this problem"
2) "It's part of the ESMTP standard, and XMAIL is supposedly a ESMTP=20
compliant server..."
3) "I guess no one can force you to use the RFC. But it's written there,=20
nontheless."
Can you show me an RFC where it is told that what you are requesting has=20
to be implemented? Both MUST and SHOULD are fine for me ...
PS: The "MUST" I used is a typical RFC term to distinguish among features=
=20
that *has* to be implemented to be compliant (MUST), and features that are=
=20
strongly suggested (SHOULD) or simply suggested (MAY). But I guess you=20
never read one, did you? :=3D)
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
