Bounce <-> Bounce <-> Bounce

[John Rudd]

On Jun 26, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Timothy M. Lyons wrote:
> From: "Michtele Neylon" <michele at BLACKNIGHTSOLUTIONS.COM>
>> On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 12:35 -0700, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
>> If you disable catchall email aliases you can get rid of a lot of
>> these
>> bounces
>>
> Umm... that would not be in the spirit of RFC-2142.
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2142.html

[top posting fixed]


Hm.  "Catchall" isn't a term I would apply to that RFC.  That RFC
specifies well known addresses that should be supported (Postmaster,
Abuse, Webmaster, etc.).  That's not a "Catchall", as far as I have
ever seen or heard the term used.  A catchall is like a wildcard, where
all mail to non-existent local addresses will be delivered.

RFC2142 does not, in any way, address catchalls.  It doesn't say you
have to have one, it doesn't say you shouldn't have one.  You _could_
use a catchall in order to satisfy RFC2142's requirements, but you
don't need one.  You could, instead, set up specific aliases for
Postmaster, Abuse, Webmaster, etc. and have them deliver to appropriate
places.  Again, that wouldn't be a catchall, that's just static
aliases.

So, disabling your catchall email alias(es) wont break the spirit, nor
letter, of RFC2142.

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html