From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 05:20:26 CST
In <200312151839.hBFIdGHj020440@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>In <Hpxw2C.Kw9@clerew.man.ac.uk>, on 12/15/2003
> at 01:56 PM, "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> said:
>>Yes, but it was the bit that said the user MUST NOT even be allowed
>>to re-configure it to post and mail that I thought was OTT.
>Why? Automatic post-and-mail is disruptive.
>>What USEAGE currently says (3.2.1.3) is that the user SHOULD be
>>warned and asked to confirm if he tries to do it (which is what
>>USEFOR used to say before we split it). You want that upgraded to
>>MUST?
>Yes.
Hmmm! Anyone else want to go with that?
(N.B., if someone uses Mail-Copies-To, then that should be followed; what
we are discussing here is when MCT is absent).
>>1. Where we are waeker than GNKSA, do we upgrade (usually means
>>changing SHOULDs to MUSTs).
>I believe that we should at least consider upgrading each of those.
>>2. On issues where we are silent, should we add text to match?
>The Devil is in the details.
Indeed, but we will have to go into those details eventually.
However, maybe a two stage approach. Would you like me to propose a batch of
changes to cope with #1 (upgrade to remove differences from GNKSA, except
mayber selected exceptions), and then start to consider #2 on a case by
case basis on a second pass?
Are people generally in favour of that?
-- 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@clerew.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