Network Working Group | D. Crocker | |
Request for Comments: 2142 | Internet Mail Consortium | |
Category: Standards Track | May 1997 |
The purpose of this memo is to aggregate and specify the basic set of mailbox names which organizations need to support. Most organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names defined here, since not every organization will implement the all of the associated services. 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.
If a host is not configured to accept mail directly, but it implements a service for which this specification defines a mailbox name, that host must have an MX RR set (see [RFC974]) and the mail exchangers specified by this RR set must recognize the referenced host's domain name as "local" for the purpose of accepting mail bound for the defined mailbox name. Note that this is true even if the advertised domain name is not the same as the host's domain name; for example, if an NNTP server's host name is DATA.RAMONA.VIX.COM yet it advertises the domain name VIX.COM in its "Path:" headers, then mail must be deliverable to both <USENET@VIX.COM> and <USENET@DATA.RAMONA.VIX.COM>, even though these addresses might be delivered to different final destinations.
The scope of a well known mailbox name is its domain name. Servers
accepting mail on behalf of a domain must accept and correctly process
mailbox names for that domain, even if the server, itself, does not support
the associated service. So, for example, if an NNTP server advertises
the organization's top level domain in "Path:" headers (see [RFC977]) the
mail exchangers for that top level domain must accept mail to <USENET@domain>
even if the mail exchanger hosts do not, themselves, serve the NNTP protocol.
Mailbox names must be recognized independent of character case. For example, POSTMASTER, postmaster, Postmaster, PostMaster, and even PoStMaStEr are to be treated the same, with delivery to the same mailbox.
Implementations of these well known names need to take account of the
expectations of the senders who will use them. Sending back an automatic
mail acknowledgement is usually helpful (though we suggest caution against
the possibility of "duelling mail robots" and the resulting mail loops).
These names are related to an organization's line-of-business activities.
The INFO name is often tied to an autoresponder, with a range of standard
files available.
MAILBOX AREA
USAGE
----------- ----------------
---------------------------
INFO
Marketing Packaged
information about the
organization, products, and/or
services, as appropriate
MARKETING Marketing
Product marketing and
marketing communications
SALES Sales
Product purchase information
SUPPORT Customer Service
Problems with product or
service
MAILBOX AREA
USAGE
----------- ----------------
---------------------------
ABUSE Customer
Relations Inappropriate public behaviour
NOC
Network Operations Network infrastructure
SECURITY Network Security
Security bulletins or queries
MAILBOX SERVICE
SPECIFICATIONS
----------- ----------------
---------------------------
POSTMASTER SMTP
[RFC821], [RFC822]
HOSTMASTER DNS
[RFC1033-RFC1035]
USENET NNTP
[RFC977]
NEWS
NNTP
Synonym for USENET
WEBMASTER HTTP
[RFC2068]
WWW
HTTP
Synonym for WEBMASTER
UUCP
UUCP
[RFC976]
FTP
FTP
[RFC959]
For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is:
<LIST@DOMAIN>
there MUST be the administrative mailbox name:
<LIST-REQUEST@DOMAIN>
Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names requires participants to know the type of list software employed at the site. This is problematic. Consequently:
LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED,
INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE
MAILBOX NAMES.
This field must be a simple word without metacharacters (such as "%" or "!" or "::"), and a mail alias should be used on the relevant mail exchanger hosts to direct zone administration mail to the appropriate mailbox.
For simplicity and regularity, it is strongly recommended that the well
known mailbox name HOSTMASTER always be used <HOSTMASTER@domain>.
Not all Autonomous Systems are registered with all registries, however,
and so undeliverable mailbox names under this scheme should be treated
as an inconvenience rather than as an error or a standards violation.
[RFC821] | Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, Information Sciences Institute, August 1982. |
[RFC822] | Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982. |
[RFC959] | Postel, J., and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)", STD 9, RFC 959, Information Sciences Institute, October 1985. |
[RFC974] | Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system", STD 14, RFC 974, CSNET CIC BBN Laboratories Inc, January 1986. |
[RFC976] | Horton, M., "UUCP mail interchange format standard", RFC
976, Bell Laboratories, February 1986.
|
[RFC977] | Kantor, B., et al, "Network News Transfer Protocol: A Proposed Standard
for the Stream-Based Transmission of News", RFC
977, University of California, February 1986.
|
[RFC1033]
|
Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide", RFC 1033, SRI International, November 1987 |
[RFC1034] | Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13,
RFC 1034, USC/Information
Sciences Institute, November 1987.
|
[RFC1035] | Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification"
STD 13, RFC 1035, USC/Information
Sciences Institute, November 1987.
|
[RFC1654] | Rekhter, Y., et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP- 4)", RFC
1654, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., July 1994.
|
[RFC1655] | Rekhter, Y., et al, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in
the Internet", RFC 1655,
T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., July 1994.
|
[RFC1656] | Traina, P., "BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and Implementation Experience", RFC 1656, cisco Systems, July 1994. |
[HTTP] | Berners-Lee, T., et al, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996. |
Phone: +1 408 246 8253
EMail: dcrocker@imc.org