[Mimedefang] [ot] must vs would. Battle at Noon.

[Kevin A. McGrail]

>> If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
>> wouldn't be any MUST's.
>>
>
> There is absolutely no logic to your statement.

All of your points seem "correct" and they are a better way of interpreting 
the RFC that I agree with.  I am, unfortunately, telling you that they state 
must/should on purpose and they really do mean different things in 
RFC-speak.  However, you are wrong in stating "And, there is nothing in the 
definition of the RFC use of the term "SHOULD" which says you MUST NOT treat 
a SHOULD as a requirement for
service".

There is, naturally, an RFC about this... 
http://rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/2119/index.html

Specifically: http://rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/2119/chapter3.html

Anyway, really not trying to beat you up about this.  It surprises a lot of 
people doing RFCs and I wish they could be interpreted the way I want 
sometimes too!

Regards,
KAM