-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm sure this has been raised before, and have done my fair share of
searching - I think - on the matter. Trouble is, I can't seem to
interpret RFC 2142 properly and reach a firm conclusion. I've seen
variations on the interpretation of Suggestion Vs Compulsion for a while
now, and no apparent clarification. Perhaps the author's view would be
particularly helpful. The availability of the "Abuse" mailbox is the
subject of exceptional debate.
Part of the abstract runs thus:
"Additional mailbox names and aliases are not prohibited, but
organizations which support email exchanges with the Internet are
encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name for
which the associated function exists within the organization."
Great. So, while I'm not prevented from inventing fab new mailboxes for
the same or even more services, business roles, etc., I'm at least
tentatively asked to support the listed mailboxes for services I run, with
the implicitly understood exception that all services for which mailboxes
are mandated in their respective standards must be available regardless.
Right?
Then, part of the Rationale says:
"However, if a given service is offerred, then the associated mailbox
name(es) must be supported, resulting in delivery to a recipient
appropriate for the referenced service or
role."
Okay, I'm confused at this point. I must support at least the addresses
for services running at my domain, in contradiction to the mere
encouragement we were getting earlier. This statement alone is not a
suggestion, as seems to be commonly believed (see policy at http://www.rfc-
ignorant.org/ 's Abuse list, for instance), and while no mention is made
of a definition for "Must" or any further RFC in which the definition may
be sought (and for which probable reason the word is therefore not in
capital letters in the text of the RFC, as is often found in RFCs making
such references), there seems to be a strong assumption that this
resembles, quite understandably, a compulsion to support the minimal set
of mailboxes, regardless (again, understood implicitly) of the definition
of the protocol by its respective standard.
So, please, can someone help me figure this out? To me, this is very,
very shaky, and I wouldn't be willing to take sides without a better grasp
on the situation and knowledge of the author's intentions in both pieces
of the text. Perhaps an updating RFC might help the situation, especially
in light of today's mail usage and needs (for example, heavily of the
aforementioned "Abuse" mailbox)? Is some of my own understanding
incorrect with regards to RFC precedence?
Cheers,
Sabahattin
- --
Thought for the day:
Communist (n): one who has given up all hope
of becoming a Capitalist.
Latest PGP Public key? Click:
<mailto:PGPPublicKey(_at_)sabahattin-gucukoglu(_dot_)com>
and send that message as is.
Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Phone: +44 (0)20 7,502-1615
Mobile: +44 (0)7986 053399
http://www.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
E-mail or MSN Messenger: <mail(_at_)Sabahattin-Gucukoglu(_dot_)com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 -- QDPGP 2.70
Comment: Previous key for
<Sabahattin_Gucukoglu(_at_)mailandnews(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> revoked due to
invalidated primary address.
iQA/AwUBP3t6hiNEOmEWtR2TEQJOmwCePqmbCCbPm14c2sqcwg4JgcWJBqkAoLAP
O+/Xc/L1otFdCpUjEdM4KVqj
=rwyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----