From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 05:50:42 CDT
In <ylg0mi215t.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Erland Sommarskog <sommar@algonet.se> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>>> Accordingly, I'd prefer to avoid any mention at all of what the
>>> software should do if the user explicitly overrode it, since at this
>>> point we're talking about user interface issues that seem rather
>>> outside the scope of the standard. Instead, I think we should state
>>> that if Mail-Copies-To is set to "never", this indicates that the
>>> poster never wants an e-mailed copy of followups and that a followup
>>> agent MUST NOT send such a copy. Is there any real need to say
>>> anything more than that, or even mention user overrides at all?
>> MUST NOT? Again, where is the interoperability problem?
>Okay, I'm convinced; SHOULD NOT makes more sense from the IETF language
>perspective.
You can say MUST NOT if you also mention overrides.
Currently, I think the position we are moving to is:
"nobody" -> MUST NOT email unless user explicitly overrides.
Ought to issue warning if user does override (and assuming implementation
can reasonably spot same).
So we have one MUST and one Ought.
We might consider downgrading the MUST to a SHOULD and upgrading the Ought
to a SHOULD, or even both, but I think it is about right as it is.
-- 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