-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I'm sure this has been raised before, and have done my fair share of searching - I think - on the matter. Trouble is, I can't seem to interpret RFC 2142 properly and reach a firm conclusion. I've seen variations on the interpretation of Suggestion Vs Compulsion for a while now, and no apparent clarification. Perhaps the author's view would be particularly helpful. The availability of the "Abuse" mailbox is the subject of exceptional debate. Part of the abstract runs thus: "Additional mailbox names and aliases are not prohibited, but organizations which support email exchanges with the Internet are encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name for which the associated function exists within the organization." Great. So, while I'm not prevented from inventing fab new mailboxes for the same or even more services, business roles, etc., I'm at least tentatively asked to support the listed mailboxes for services I run, with the implicitly understood exception that all services for which mailboxes are mandated in their respective standards must be available regardless. Right? Then, part of the Rationale says: "However, if a given service is offerred, then the associated mailbox name(es) must be supported, resulting in delivery to a recipient appropriate for the referenced service or role." Okay, I'm confused at this point. I must support at least the addresses for services running at my domain, in contradiction to the mere encouragement we were getting earlier. This statement alone is not a suggestion, as seems to be commonly believed (see policy at http://www.rfc- ignorant.org/ 's Abuse list, for instance), and while no mention is made of a definition for "Must" or any further RFC in which the definition may be sought (and for which probable reason the word is therefore not in capital letters in the text of the RFC, as is often found in RFCs making such references), there seems to be a strong assumption that this resembles, quite understandably, a compulsion to support the minimal set of mailboxes, regardless (again, understood implicitly) of the definition of the protocol by its respective standard. So, please, can someone help me figure this out? To me, this is very, very shaky, and I wouldn't be willing to take sides without a better grasp on the situation and knowledge of the author's intentions in both pieces of the text. Perhaps an updating RFC might help the situation, especially in light of today's mail usage and needs (for example, heavily of the aforementioned "Abuse" mailbox)? Is some of my own understanding incorrect with regards to RFC precedence? Cheers, Sabahattin - -- Thought for the day: Communist (n): one who has given up all hope of becoming a Capitalist. Latest PGP Public key? Click: <mailto:PGPPublicKey@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com> and send that message as is. Sabahattin Gucukoglu Phone: +44 (0)20 7,502-1615 Mobile: +44 (0)7986 053399 http://www.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/ E-mail or MSN Messenger: <mail@Sabahattin-Gucukoglu.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 -- QDPGP 2.70 Comment: Previous key for <Sabahattin_Gucukoglu@mailandnews.co.uk> revoked due to invalidated primary address. iQA/AwUBP3t6hiNEOmEWtR2TEQJOmwCePqmbCCbPm14c2sqcwg4JgcWJBqkAoLAP O+/Xc/L1otFdCpUjEdM4KVqj =rwyS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----