Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA12198; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:42:52 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA12115; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from foxharp.boston.ma.us (gutso.american.com [204.253.111.241]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA17657; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 28939 invoked by uid 406); 16 Sep 1997 19:23:43 -0000 To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: postmaster semantics? In-reply-to: perry's message of Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:13:40 -0400. <199709161813.OAA18742@jekyll.piermont.com> Reply-to: pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us X-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28935.874437823.1@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:23:43 -0400 Message-ID: <28937.874437823@foxharp.boston.ma.us> From: Paul Fox > My (simple) (re)interpretation of this for the future: > > If a right hand side (that is, @foo.bar.com) is valid for the delivery > of ANY addresses, it be valid for postmaster, too, period, end of > story, no room for argument. it's certainly what the user will expect... and that's who it's for. paul --------------------- paul fox, postmaster@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma)