[Mimedefang] Potential for Business mail servers tonot havereverse DNS

[John Rudd]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 00:30, John Rudd wrote:
>   
>>> If a SHOULD could be interpreted as a requirement, there
>>> wouldn't be any MUST's.
>>>   
>>>       
>> There is absolutely no logic to your statement.
>>
>>
>> A MUST is _always_ a requirement.  Even if a SHOULD is sometimes treated 
>> as a requirement for service (as that RFC clearly states) it does not 
>> displace the need for MUSTS, because a SHOULD is _not_ _always_ a 
>> requirement for service.
>>     
>
> A SHOULD is _never_ a requirement.
The section of RFC 1912 that I quoted directly contradicts you.  It 
lists a should, and outlines that the consequence for deviating from the 
should may be denial of service.  Therefore, it specifically states that 
a should _may_be_ a requirement for service.  Period.