On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 2. You cannot, and MUST NOT interpret a single phrase, sentence, or
> section, of any RFC on its own -- or even any whole RFC on its own.
>
> You _MUST_ consider the whole body of relevant work, and do so in the
> right context. Why does this seem so bloody hard for some people to
> understand?
Could it possibly because you keep responding to a single phrase,
sentence, or section of an RFC on its own, in the form of riddles,
which leaves readers in complete doubt of what you think they mean
when interpreted in the context of the whole?
> 3. Please learn the true purpose of the HELO/EHLO greeting
But, as we'll doubtless see, it's too much to hope for you to tell us
what you consider its "true purpose" to be. Troll on.
In the final analysis, no-one can be compelled to accept mail which is
contrary to their own policy or legislative framework, no matter what
a technical RFC might tell them. Any RFC - or even STD - which tried
to tell them otherwise would be a failure.
