On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 08:56:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: > > The domain's technical contact. > > Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work > than [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a lot less likely. sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the right thing to do as a postmaster account or alias is required by the relevant RFCs. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is the only address which is *required*. all of the other common ones (hostmaster, webmaster, abuse, etc) are either strongly recommended or just common practice/convention. from section 6.3 of RFC-822: 6.3. RESERVED ADDRESS It often is necessary to send mail to a site, without know- ing any of its valid addresses. For example, there may be mail system dysfunctions, or a user may wish to find out a person's correct address, at that site. This standard specifies a single, reserved mailbox address (local-part) which is to be valid at each site. Mail sent to that address is to be routed to a person responsible for the site's mail system or to a person with responsibility for general site operation. The name of the reserved local-part address is: Postmaster so that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is required to be valid. Note: This reserved local-part must be matched without sensi- tivity to alphabetic case, so that "POSTMASTER", "postmas- ter", and even "poStmASteR" is to be accepted. this requirement is also mentioned in at least RFC-1123 ("Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support"), RFC-1648 ("Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations"), and RFC-2142 ("MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND FUNCTIONS"). craig -- craig sanders