upvote
Email is about standards like browsers were about standards in 2017...
reply
Yes, except there seems to be a move on the best words from SHALL to MUST and from SHOULD to MAY. IANAL but I recall reading this in e.g. legal language guidance sites.
reply
RFC language is expmicltly defined in 2119[0]. Any other interpretation is incorrect.

[0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119

reply
Thank you for that. So should is optional, people!
reply
I think that is a bit to easy. MAY is described ar optional.

SHOULD - Should really be there. It's not MUST, you can ignore it but do not come crying if your email is not delivered to some of your customers ! you should have though about that before.

reply
Maybe the standards documents you are used to differ from RFCs, but here is the official language:

   3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
      may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
      particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
      carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
SHOULD is effectively REQUIRED unless it conflicts with another standards requirement or you have a very specific edge case.
reply
Nope, it's exactly what it says: RECOMMENDED.

Any time any document (standards or otherwise) says something is recommended, then of course you should think it through before going against the recommendation. Going from their verbiage to:

> SHOULD is effectively REQUIRED unless it conflicts with another standards requirement or you have a very specific edge case.

is a fairly big leap.

reply
I just don't understand how you get from the text you pasted to "required". Nowhere does it say that anything is effectively required. Words have meaning.
reply
> the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Note the use of the word "must" used twice there. Barring a sufficiently good reason and accepting the consequences, this becomes a very poorly worded "required".

The spec would have been far better starting with SHALL and then carving out the allowance for exceptions.

reply
No, its not a "required"... It means someone may have reasons not to use something, and so spec implementors need to allow for circumstances where it is not present.

Those reasons can be anything. Legal, practical, technological, ideaological. You don't know. All you know is not using it is explicitly permitted.

reply