Fwd: Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query
The Host Requirements RFC says that if you support "receiver SMTP", you must support the reserved mailbox "Postmaster".
In my experience, interpreting that statement has been a pre-existing exercise for the readers for nearly a decade, with many results.
The Host Requirements RFC also says, I believe, that you are to respond to PING -- try that with www.microsoft.com. My point is, it appears that the Host Requirements RFC seems to be "interpreted" in the real world. Lots of sites seem to not implement postmaster. But then again, sites seem to not maintain contact info in the whois database that's valid, and I would think that would impact network operations even more... Is there a BCP-like list somewhere? Or has this, like other things, been discusssed to death on NANOG in decades gone by...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Host Requirements RFC also says, I believe, that you are to respond to PING -- try that with www.microsoft.com. My point is, it appears that the Host Requirements RFC seems to be "interpreted" in the real world. Lots of sites seem to not implement postmaster.
My pet peeve is "501 bogus mail from" in response to "mail from:<>", as required by RFC1123. This just fills up my double-bounce mailbox with other people's bounces, and deprives senders of notification of delivery failures. So I stopped accepting mail from domains that refuse their own bounces. Ipswitch Imail is usually the culprit, with the "refuse null sender" mis-feature. - --- "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" - Kosh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBO9W3C0ksS4VV8BvHEQIHVQCgpHU6wGJwLFK9z5mTB8mSxP22msEAn0yA 9ZDao1YnuzwHAMmiXg8w0J+A =90em -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Mike Batchelor -
Rodney Thayer