Re: Postmaster 'best practices' query

[Peter van Dijk <peter () dataloss nl>]

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