On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Cybertime Hostmaster wrote: > For example, I think that a good chunk of RFC 2124 > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2142.txt is elitist and WRONG. > > This is the one where they say you MUST have this email address, and > you > MUST have that email address. > > Basically it states that if you are an ISP you MUST have abuse@, ftp@, > hostmaster@, info@, marketing@, news@, noc@, postmaster@, sales@, > security@, > support@, usenet@, uucp@, webmaster@, and www@ <yourdomain>.
Actually, what 2142 says is "if you have a service, you have to have the e-mail address(es) which are relevant".. If you don't Usenet, then you don't need usenet@, if you don't have FTP service, then you don't need ftp@, etc. > 1) Welcome to the elitist English only club. To every international organization there has to be a standard language. The United Nations does not print its documents in each one of the hundreds and hundreds of different languages in the world, they have chosen three (French, English, and one other that I can't remember) that are the "standard" languages. If you fly a plane anywhere in the world, it doesn't matter, you speak english when you talk to the tower. You can be (as the anecdote goes) a German pilot flying a german plane for Lufthansa leaving Berlin, and you'll still talk to the tower in English, because that is the standardized language for air traffic communications. If I need to mail the abuse department of an African ISP, I shouldn't have to know what "abuse" is in Swahili. There needs to be a standardized communications path, and that's what 2142 provides. > 1) The WhoIs listed contacts should be reachable, which is what > they are > arguing with UUNet over. > 2) DSN ( <> ) mail should be accepted. Glad to see we agree on some things. :-) D (who really didn't intend to start a huge thread with my original message, honest)
