[RFCI-Discuss] RFC2821 section 3.6 & 4.5.1, <postmaster> and listing criteria

[Abuse Desk]

Administrative Account <hostmaster at Plectere.com> wrote:
> The annotated version of RFC2821 on the rfci site at:
>
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/rfcs/rfc2821.php#section3.6
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/rfcs/rfc2821.php#section4.5.1
>
> has specifically highlighted both sections 3.6 and 4.5.1 regarding the
> "MUST" requirement for the "bare" <postmaster> (lacking any domain
> specification) to be accepted;  However, the listing criteria at:
>
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php
>
> make no mention of a failure to abide by these clauses as grounds for
> a listing in the rfci "postmaster" list.  Is this an oversight, a
> historical leftover (i.e. once it was sufficient for a nomination
> to be accepted), or simply a case of disjoint documents which happen
> to be on the same site?
>
> Along the same line, sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 make clear that
> acceptance of <postmaster@[IPv4-address-literal]> is required as they
> define a bracketed IP literal as a valid format for the domain portion
> of an address.  Even though these sections are not highlighted, should
> there also be a criteria for listing when they are refused?

It appears that the advent of DNS has bypassed those particular clauses.
Of course, failure to accept the "bare" <postmaster> (lacking any domain
specification) or <postmaster@[IPv4-address-literal]> (or evidence that
they are accepted but not actually read by a human) should implicitly be
grounds for listing by postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org, but maybe it's a
good idea to make those grounds explicit.

As a side note, we don't appreciate SSW's failure to test for those
failure to accept conditions.

-- 
Best Regards,

Abuse Desk
DeSpam.Us