From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 08 2000 - 04:08:07 CST
In <v04220801b4c499635e42@[216.229.13.10]> "G. James Berigan" <usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org> writes:
>What reason would anyone have to use an address where no poster of the
>article is listed, an unauthorized address is used, or a non-flagged
>.invalid address is used? Downgrading all that to SHOULD needs
>justification.
>Just because people might not do as we say does not mean we can't be firm
>in what we say. We should know a compelling reason why a poster should be
>allowed to violate a requirement before downgrading to a SHOULD. If
>there's no compelling reason, it must be a MUST.
But there is no severe interoperability issue. Nobody dies. Does anyone
else want me to upgrade it to a MUST?
>Also, change "be one which" to "be a mailbox which". Otherwise, there are
>too many nouns to which "one" may refer: article, poster, field, mailbox.
Yes.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5