-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Greg
Connor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:14 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Test tool for type 99
wayne wrote:
I would say "yes". Section 4.5 doesn't say "equivalent", it
says "identical".
I may be missing something obvious, but why are we checking
records against
each other again? Is there something wrong with choosing one or the other
and just running with it?
I can see that we want to strongly recommend that they be the same (to the
point of saying they MUST be) but should we force all parsers to check and
compare both? Would it be bad to just say "They must be identical.
Publisher assumes any risk for incorrect results if they are not
identical.
Syntax checkers SHOULD check this, receiving parsers MAY check this"
--
The only reason to check records against each other is if one is a
validation tool. Nothing wrong with choosing one or the other and running
with it (but that's also why identical is important).
Scott K