Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA12251; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:13:54 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:12:42 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA12130; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:12:40 -0400 Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [128.248.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA12113; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:12:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 10407 invoked by uid 666); 25 Apr 1997 19:19:59 -0000 Date: 25 Apr 1997 19:19:59 -0000 Message-ID: <19970425191959.10406.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work > I agree that it's difficult to specify UA behavior, and that there > are problems with rules written in terms like "must display" -- > especially as they apply to auto-responders. Translation into English: Your proposed requirement simply doesn't work. It prohibits behavior that everyone agrees is useful. > I suppose the easiest way to fix this is to change the MUST in 2a > to a SHOULD. No. Changing ``MUST'' to ``SHOULD'' doesn't fix a stupid requirement. Keith, you claimed that RFC 822 imposed constraints on replies. I asked you exactly what constraints those were. How come you haven't answered? ---Dan Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html