3 ms·
Happily, the meanings in RFCs are clearly specified, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119. Note "the full implicat
by Arnt 8mo ago
Happily, the meanings in RFCs are clearly specified, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.
Note "the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course". Gmail and the other big hosters have full-time spam teams who spend a lot of time weighing implications, so I assume the implications of this was weighed.
- patmorgan23 8mo agoAnd EVERY rfc has a paragraph talking about rfc 2119 in the preamble.
- prerok 8mo agoI guess that's why nobody reads it. /s
- SAI_Peregrinus 8mo agoI feel like "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT" are redundant. You end up having to assume someone else treated them as a "MAY". If you control all the endpoints in a private implementation you can just deviate from the standard & not implement a MUST, it's your private implementation. There's thus no difference in public implementations between "SHOULD" and "MAY", and no difference in internal implementations between any of the words. They are therefore redundant, requirements are either mandatory or optional, there's no middle.