Subj : MSGID
To   : Bj�rn Felten
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Thu Feb 03 2022 07:36 pm

 Re: MSGID
 By: Bj�rn Felten to Rob Swindell on Fri Feb 04 2022 03:54 am

>  RS>>> If you send a netmail there, it'll reach me. But that clause is only
> a
>  RS>>> "should" anyway. It doesn't *have* to be a valid return address for
> the
>  RS>>> originating network.
>
>  >> Says who?
>
>  RS> Says FTS-0009.001:
>
>  RS> "The originating address should be specified in a form that
>  RS> constitutes a valid return address for the originating network."
>
>    I was more thinking about how you interpret "should" to "yeah, fuck that,
> it actually doesn't say I *have* to, so I ignore that totally, they probably
> just added the "should" for fun".

In the language of technical specifications there is a firm differentiation between "should" (or "may") and "shall" (or "must"). The use of the word "should" is deliberate and not "just added for fun".

http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1006.002 defines "SHOULD" to "mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

I'll leave it to the original poster to fully understand the implications
before choosing their course. I was just providing my own insight.
--
                                           digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #25:
Viv Savage: Have... a good... time... all the time. That's my philosophy.
Norco, CA WX: 57.4�F, 22.0% humidity, 0 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.