Ned said most of what I wanted to, but a couple of little points:
On 12/11/07 at 1:19 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The spec. could note that there are mutilating^Wcomplex lists
violating the MUST. It could also say SHOULD, an RFC on standards
track might be a good excuse to violate this SHOULD (a SHOULD is
also the shortest possible fix).
This seems like nonsense lawyering instead of doing something useful
in this document. Someone who is implementing a minimal SMTP really
ought to respect the "MUST be left unchanged". Yes, it would be
lovely if every document referred to every other document related to
it, except that it would be a nightmare of criss-crossing documents.
Furthermore, see Dave's message re: why the simple "multi-casting"
lists are worth talking about in 2821bis, whereas the other sorts are
not.
Admittedly RFC 2369 and 2919 don't reference [2]821, but as DS
2821bis trumps PS, and a MUST is critical by definition. If there
are good excuses lets say SHOULD.
I most emphatically disagree that a Draft Standard "trumps" a
Proposed Standard in this sense. A DS defines a well-understood and
stable protocol. What is well understood and stable is that header
changes cause damage. A PS may propose that some header changes
won't cause damage and are a good thing. That's fine. It doesn't mean
that the MUST in a DS "trumps" a PS doing something different.
The rest of your message is wandering into DKIM and other spam
related things having nothing to do with this discussion.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf