rfc 2821 + postmaster
-
Is it just me or am I seeing less compliance in the setup of postmaster@fqdn
-
This one is a major problem because .... who is required to maintain it? Because of how email addresses are mostly handled today, postmaster@ is for Office 365, GMail, Zoho. or whoever the provider is to handle. But what are they going to do with those emails? When you have third party email hosting, the RFC requirements of a postmaster address doesn't make a lot of sense because the duties there are a bit ambiguous. We have one, but most companies would not. Since accounts are charged by the mailbox, it's up to the provider to handle this on their end normally.
-
Also RFC are not requirements. The IETF certainly does not accept all RFP as Internet Standards.
-
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
-
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
That's correct, but the actual postmaster isn't normally someone at the final company, but at the email provider.
Think about some small sewing business with two old ladies. They order email from Office 365. Which one of them should get the postmaster emails? Neither of them can do anything about them. Should their nephew, the IT guy get it? He's not responsible for their email or any of their decisions. Only Microsoft has any reasonable hope of using that info. So an alias would break the postmaster and send the emails to the wrong place.
-
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
That's correct, but the actual postmaster isn't normally someone at the final company, but at the email provider.
Think about some small sewing business with two old ladies. They order email from Office 365. Which one of them should get the postmaster emails? Neither of them can do anything about them. Should their nephew, the IT guy get it? He's not responsible for their email or any of their decisions. Only Microsoft has any reasonable hope of using that info. So an alias would break the postmaster and send the emails to the wrong place.
OK sure, but in those cases, there really isn't a true cost to the hosting provider - they could build the system in such a way to not show the account to the account holder yet get the emails to the hosting provider. Yes this would take coding... but it's not impossible.
-
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
That's correct, but the actual postmaster isn't normally someone at the final company, but at the email provider.
Think about some small sewing business with two old ladies. They order email from Office 365. Which one of them should get the postmaster emails? Neither of them can do anything about them. Should their nephew, the IT guy get it? He's not responsible for their email or any of their decisions. Only Microsoft has any reasonable hope of using that info. So an alias would break the postmaster and send the emails to the wrong place.
OK sure, but in those cases, there really isn't a true cost to the hosting provider - they could build the system in such a way to not show the account to the account holder yet get the emails to the hosting provider. Yes this would take coding... but it's not impossible.
Right, and maybe they do. But I think that the issue is... no one does and it is unclear who is responsible for conforming to the "rule".
-
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
That's correct, but the actual postmaster isn't normally someone at the final company, but at the email provider.
Think about some small sewing business with two old ladies. They order email from Office 365. Which one of them should get the postmaster emails? Neither of them can do anything about them. Should their nephew, the IT guy get it? He's not responsible for their email or any of their decisions. Only Microsoft has any reasonable hope of using that info. So an alias would break the postmaster and send the emails to the wrong place.
OK sure, but in those cases, there really isn't a true cost to the hosting provider - they could build the system in such a way to not show the account to the account holder yet get the emails to the hosting provider. Yes this would take coding... but it's not impossible.
Right, and maybe they do. But I think that the issue is... no one does and it is unclear who is responsible for conforming to the "rule".
yeah - is the hosting provider or the client? both will/could say it's the other, and then it's simply never done.
-
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@scottalanmiller said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
@Dashrender said in rfc 2821 + postmaster:
It could be an alias - so it wouldn't have to be a paid account.
That's correct, but the actual postmaster isn't normally someone at the final company, but at the email provider.
Think about some small sewing business with two old ladies. They order email from Office 365. Which one of them should get the postmaster emails? Neither of them can do anything about them. Should their nephew, the IT guy get it? He's not responsible for their email or any of their decisions. Only Microsoft has any reasonable hope of using that info. So an alias would break the postmaster and send the emails to the wrong place.
OK sure, but in those cases, there really isn't a true cost to the hosting provider - they could build the system in such a way to not show the account to the account holder yet get the emails to the hosting provider. Yes this would take coding... but it's not impossible.
Right, and maybe they do. But I think that the issue is... no one does and it is unclear who is responsible for conforming to the "rule".
yeah - is the hosting provider or the client? both will/could say it's the other, and then it's simply never done.
And I think it shows that the concept might not be valid any longer. Neither is likely capable of doing anything valuable with that email.
