Re: [Exim] Mail problem

"Dave C." <djc@???> writes:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:46:29PM -0500, Dave C. wrote:
> > > While theoritically using the user@[ip.ad.re.ss] format is technically
> > > valid, it is a terribly archaic manner of addressing, and should be
> > > obsoleted, if it isnt officially already, at least on the public
> > > Internet. No mailhost I run will ever accept that as a sender or
> > > recipient address, local or remote.
> >
> > Then you are in breach of the RFCs.
> >
> > >>> RCPT TO:<postmaster@[ip.ad.re.ss]>
> >
> > MUST be accepted, as must
> >
> > >>> RCPT TO:<postmaster>
>
> Oh indeed not! Fully qualified addresses with domains only, thank you.
> We dont accept mail for hosts, only for domains. Which of the several
> thousand domains that we host postmaster would you like to send to?

Better stop using Exim, then :) --- because it does always allow
"postmaster" to be unqualified on a RCPT command, adding the
qualify_recipient (defaulting to qualify_domain) domain in this
case regardless of the receiver_unqualified_hosts setting.

> I do recall something about their must be a postmaster address at every
> _domain_ that one runs mail for, but nothing like you mention. Do you
> have a reference for these requirements (as a curiosity only, so I know
> which one to reference as I write a new one obsoleting it)

For the unqualified "postmaster", see RFC 2821 sections 3.6 and 4.1.1.3.
RFC 1123 seems to be a trifle vague on this point.

> As someone previously mentioned, site policies are not dictated by RFC.
> Especially RFCs from decades ago that took no account of the
> current nature of the Internet.

As for postmaster @ a domain litteral, it would clearly be nonsensical to
accept this if domain litterals are not going to be included in the local
domains. And equally contrary to the spirit of the RFCs not to support
postmaster @ any domain litteral which *is* so included.

Chris Thompson
Email: cet1@???