[Mimedefang] [ot] must vs would. Battle at Noon.
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgrail at pccc.com
Sat Sep 23 06:07:02 EDT 2006
>> 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
There is, naturally, an RFC about this...
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
More information about the MIMEDefang