-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WebMaster(_at_)commerco(_dot_)net wrote:
I appreciate your explanation to Alessandro, as it better clarifies
the thinking behind not requiring actions on the receiver side in the
specification for me. Even so, I think his is point is well taken
(unless I'm missing something else), in that offering recommendations
in RFC specs is not unusual. Simply couch them in words like
"should" or "may".
Understood. However the specification is already making such a suggestion
for receivers' reaction to the "Fail" result:
| The checking software can choose to mark the mail based on this or to
| reject the mail outright.
I don't have a problem with such soft-talk. What I am against is making
one reaction or the other _mandatory_.
If there is an underlying reason why "some things are better left
unspecified" that you can either share here or simply assure me is
true, but not for public consumption, I'll leave this issue entirely
and accept what you say on this point without additional questions.
There's no secret magic at work here. I'm merely trying to get my point
across that strictly specifying some things is counter-productive.
You're free to dissent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHhUGBwL7PKlBZWjsRApyLAJ9aCWRA2/UhRTVjhudEODEfYiVJTwCfW18b
22pXCuSr9I9rrH2NnE41HKI=
=fCCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=83958950-285e15
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com