james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Serge Knystautas <ser...@lokitech.com>
Subject Re: fix for bug 20370
Date Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:14:54 GMT
>     Gotcha.  I would suggest to build on Postel by saying:
>     - if the RFC says "the [sender] MUST/MUST NOT" [blah blah]," we
>     should strive to be lenient.
>     - if the RFC says "the [receiver] MUST/MUST NOT [blah blah]," we
>     should not be lenient.
> Do you have these reversed? strict with sending and lienient with 
> receiving?

No, just have my context poorly described.  By sender I meant the remote 
machine and by receiver I meant James.  Meaning, if the RFC says the 
remote machine MUST do something (or not something), James should still 
be lenient and not act like a policecop of the RFC.  However, if the RFC 
says James MUST do something (or not something), then we must do something.

> Again though, I think it's a solid idea, but in practice over time it I 
> think it hurts the product and RFC.

I can't see how this hurts the product, and the RFC has already been 
destroyed many times over by real-world implementations.  So relatively, 
I see any damage we're doing to the RFC at this point as inconsequential. :)

At this point I'd weigh the behavior of sendmail, qmail, exchange, and a 
few others more highly than what the RFC states.

Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. sergek@lokitech.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message