OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: null reverse-path
From: Ronny Haryanto (ronny-postfixharyan.to)
Date: Tue Jul 04 2000 - 00:18:53 CDT

On 04-Jul-2000, adi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 09:51:30PM -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
> > I don't think so. About ten lines above it it says:
> > Support empty reverse path |5.2.9 |x| | | | |
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Mentioning another line _is_ intentional, because it use, explicitly,
> 'accept'. Please consider that there are many words 'accept' and
> 'refuse' which used in the rfc. But why should for the statement
> above the author use 'support'? Should support, in this case, would
> be identical with 'accept'?

You can't support it and not accept it at the same time. If you
support it, that means you accept it. Look at it from another side:
if you refuse it, that means you do not support it.

I'm getting off this train right now. I think my original question has
been answered. Thank you all.

Ronny