|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
> IOW: Which of the following are required vice recommended vice > best practives, etc. > > a) [email protected] > b) [email protected] > c) [email protected] > d) [email protected] > e) [email protected] > > and most important to me: where to I go to justify the > decisions on same? 2821 (section 4.5.1) says that "postmaster" (with no domain" must be accepted as: (a) a local name (with no domain specified, as in: RCPT TO:<Postmaster>" (b) A mailbox at every domain for which the mail server accepts mail. That means that the answer to your five questions are are: a) [email protected] is required if any mail addressed to @example.com is accepted. b) [email protected] is required if any mail addressed to @mail.example.com is accepted. c), d), e) follow the example above. Had you also included: f) postmaster The answer would be "yes, that is required". RFC2821 would be a good place to go to justify decisions on same. (Well, to justify a decision to implement [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] to exist.) -- Brett
|