[ On Wednesday, December 10, 2003 at 19:34:49 (+0000), Russell King wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Domain literals: weighing up the arguments
>
> You appear to believe that I'm saying that "postmaster@domain" should
> not be valid;
In fact I've never said or even alluded to anything of the sort.
> indeed, you're quoting bits of an obsoleted standard
> which describe the necessary need to mandatorily supply such an
> address.
That's not why I tried to show you that text.
> However, if you look at the /current/ standard, RFC2822, you'll realise
> that the address "postmaster" is also mandated,
Indeed, but that's irrelevant to this very specific issue.
> a point which you've
> missed by looking at out of date standard information.
I think you should try to learn a little more about how to read and
interpret RFCs.
> Note: for clarity, I'll say this: I'm not saying that postmaster
> addresses are optional. They /are/ required. Period. We're in
> agreement, ok?
This thread isn't really about that particular topic -- that's a
prerequisite for what we're (trying to) discuss here.
> However, /nothing/ that you have quoted says that "you must provide
> postmaster@[ipliteral]".
Well, if you'd paid attention to the whole picture instead of
nit-picking about irrelevant details then maybe you'd understand why
supporting the domain-literal form is in fact (still) necessary.
Of course it's "necessary" at the level of a "SHOULD" in IETF
terminology, but, as I'm sure I've said before, any implementer ignoring
"SHOULD" had better have a very damn good reason for doing so and still
be prepared to be shot down as either being lazy or ignoring important
quality-of-service features.
You can whine and nit-pick about the details and try to weasle out of
this but only at the expense of the bigger picture, and in this case
only by doing a disservice to the rest of the Internet community.
> Yes, sure, if you provide mail service for a domain @[ipliteral] then
> the standards mandate that you have postmaster@[ipliteral]. However,
> if you don't provide service for the domain [ipliteral], they do not
> mandate that address.
Please try to learn more about how to read and interpret IETF
documents. You've got that part all wrong.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
