[43664] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Mon Oct 22 14:01:36 2001
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:00:16 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20011022200015.A44120@dataloss.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200110221702.MAA03817@rbfux.rbfnet.com>; from rbf@rbfnet.com on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:02:09PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:02:09PM -0500, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
[snip]
> RFC2821 would be a good place to go to justify decisions on same.
> (Well, to justify a decision to implement
> postmaster@any.domain.for.which.mail.is.accepted, and to implement
> "postmaster". It wouldn't really help you justify a decision to not
> implement that. OTOH, if someone is arguing that the the mere
> existance of xyz.com implies that postmaster@xyz.com must exist, then I
> would note that neither RFC2821 nor any other RFC of which I am aware
> imposes such a requirement. As long as @xyz.com isn't being used for
> any mail, there is no requirement for postmaster@xyz.com to exist.)
Some country-TLD registrars do have this requirement, however.
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
