> It is a RFC violation to not have postmaster address. I think 2 or 3 RFC > talk about this.
yes. (and not having abuse@... also). But what is the relation between the - IMHO confused - postmaster configuration variable and the RFC requirement for a postmaster account? A valid postmaster account can be created without this variable, and an invalid can exist while using this variable. I do not know what was the original intent, but I think its meaning is overloaded now. If we want to assure that the user wouldn't forget to add a postmaster account then a simple forwarding mailet entry in the default configuration file would be clearer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harmeet Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 8:21 PM Subject: Re: postmaster configuration variable > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hontvari Jozsef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think the only generally acceptable value of the > > postmaster configuration parameter is [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It is a RFC violation to not have postmaster address. I think 2 or 3 RFC > talk about this. > > Harmeet > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
