From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 05:25:26 CST
In <yladtwqcwv.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Yeah, it was a poorly chosen example. Sorry. A better example would be
>an injector that automatically added a tracking number to the subject
>line, perhaps because it's also gating messages into mail and can't assume
>that mail clients will preserve References information.
But I think injectors should not be doing that without the poster's
knowledge. If there is some prior understanding between the poster and the
injector (sounds like a cooperating subnet, to me) then it is fine. So I
think, for our document, SHOULD NOT is exactly right (and invoke the RFC
2119 letout for those special cases).
>Although I see that RFC 2119 doesn't actually define fully compliant and
>conditionally compliant; other standards instead add that information to
>the RFC 2119 keywords. That's unfortunate; I wonder why that is?
One of the wonders of "hindsight" :-) .
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk 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