On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:53:18PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
> > This is not a bug, but it is admittedly an unecessary deviation from
> > SHOULD normative language in the RFC when the client is in flagrant
> > violation by sending garbage.
>
> At the risk of moving away from Postfix technical issues, RFC 2821 is poorly
> written. SHOULD, despite much misuse in commonly used English, is the past
> tense of SHALL. Something that SHALL be done is mandatory yet in common but
> incorrect use, SHOULD is often used to mean present tense MAY (as in you can
> do so but it is not mandatory). As a formal document, the RFC ought to say
> either SHALL (mandatory) or MAY (optional) with SHOULD, being in the past
> tense, completely incorrect in the context of that paragraph. Unfortunately,
> given the incorrect use of SHOULD, it is unclear to me what the RFC really
> means.
You *should* next read:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
