MIME or inline signature ?

[MFPA]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Friday 13 February 2015 at 7:41:14 PM, in
<mid:54DE535A.2060205 at sixdemonbag.org>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:


> Postel's sentiments were more, "Reject traffic that
> does not conform to the spec, even if it's in common
> use; accept traffic that conforms to the protocol spec,
> even if it's exotic; and only generate traffic that
> conforms to both spec and common use."  Unfortunately,
> that loses much of the poetry of the original phrasing.


Rejecting traffic that does not conform to the spec, even if it's in
common use is counter-intuitive. It seems to be denying yourself
access to some of the incoming traffic for the sake of pedantry, which
sounds like it would harm interoperability. But, of course, the point
of having a spec is interoperability.


- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-groups at riseup.net

No man ever listened himself out of a job
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=
=MUbx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----