[Mailman-Users] query re "message has implicit destination" (devils advocate!)

stephen at xemacs.org stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Aug 31 13:36:53 CEST 2006

Brad Knowles writes:
 > At 2:07 AM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:
 > >  (locally) it's been referred to as a "be strict in what you send, relaxed in
 > >  what you receive" approach but not everyone adheres to (or is aware of) this
 > >  way of looking at things and it seems antiquated to some.
 > It's called the Postel Principle, and some of us are old enough to 
 > remember when the term was first coined.  While there are cases where 
 > it is not always appropriate to apply the Postel Principle, there are 
 > still plenty of us around that firmly believe that using "safe 
 > defaults" is a better way to go.

IMHO, it's the *same way to go.*  AIUI (I seem to be missing a post or
two) Mailman accepted the mail, Mailman did not drop it on the floor,
Mailman *could* have sent it---but the Postel Principle doesn't imply
that it should have done so.  We have good reason (by default, which
default doesn't apply to Bretton's shop, it seems) to believe that
that post should be looked at (strictly ;-) by a human before sending.


More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list