Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id IAA13160; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:38:42 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:38:16 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id IAA13049; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:38:14 -0400
From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Message-Id: <199510051238.IAA13049@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) 
          id <18370-0@domen.uninett.no>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:37:31 +0100
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: support for Postmaster address
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 1995 21:27:27 +1000." <22759.812892447@munnari.OZ.AU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 13:37:29 +0100
Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

That's the nice thing about strawmen; you get good reasons for not
doing it that way!

After reading your arguments, and especially in light of the 521 MX
discussion, I think the requirement for MX targets should be a SHOULD;
there are valid cases where it's sensible not to do it, but most of the
time, it's better if you do it.

BTW, RFC 1123 states:

         A host that supports a receiver-SMTP MUST support the reserved
         mailbox "Postmaster".

This might be construed to mean that RCPT TO: <postmaster> should be valid
in all cases (OPINIONS PLEASE!); I think adding support for 
postmaster@hostname shouldn't be so terribly hard....

                Harald A