> ok, lets assume that you meant with "can not be ignored" actually "must not > be ignored". now thats where the definitions in RFC2119 kick in:
Hmm, that wasn't meant so harsh than it sounds after rereading. sorry about that.
> ok, lets assume that you meant with "can not be ignored" actually "must not > be ignored". now thats where the definitions in RFC2119 kick in:
Hmm, that wasn't meant so harsh than it sounds after rereading. sorry about that.