> Having a stricter definition would help IMHO, as the sender would
have > a chance to know how the recipient will interpret it, and the
> recipient will have a chance to know what the sender meant by it.
A stricter definition should tell the recipient exactly what the
sender meant, or at least exactly what it could mean per RFC.
I don't see anyway for this to predict how the recipient will
chose to interpret it.
Or at least the probably of determining the senders intention
is a lot higher than that of determining the recipients interpretation.
IMHO, unless a response is required from the recipient, the
recipients actual interpretation is moot. All we can ask is that
the senders intention is clear.