-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
[...]
Most of what Stuart said here I have already commented in another message
of mine.
While previous specs said PermErr MUST be treated as None, I have
taken receiver policy in the sender policy spec with a grain of salt.
Indeed.
IMO, the Sender Policy spec should use 'MAY' and 'SHOULD' when
recommending receiver policy.
No. RFC 2119 keyword language should only be used for defining the meaning
of _sender_ policy, particularly including the exact meaning of the result
codes, possibly in relation to each other ("The 'Foo' result has a
slightly different meaning than 'Bar', but SHOULD be treated the same.")
But it should _not_ be used to absolutely suggest, recommend, or prescribe
_receiver_ policy. It is not required for a uniform interpretation of
sender policies, and it also is pointless because receivers will not
adhere to it (and why should they?).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCjoY7wL7PKlBZWjsRAn3FAKDdxHZC42VzbGBLjtz0tTVan68WxgCePzJ5
0ku3JS3h0fcj6vuB5GCtJdM=
=KIGb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----