Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA19816; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:44:57 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:44:31 -0400
Received: from imag.imag.fr by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA19775; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:43:43 -0400
From: <Alain.Durand@imag.fr>
Received: from brahma.imag.fr (brahma.imag.fr [129.88.30.10]) by imag.imag.fr (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA20026 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:43:40 +0100
Received: (from durand@localhost) by brahma.imag.fr (8.7/8.7) id OAA08445 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:43:39 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <9510051443.ZM8443@brahma.imag.fr>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:43:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
        "Re: support for Postmaster address" (Oct  5,  1:37pm)
References: <199510051238.IAA13049@CS.UTK.EDU>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: support for Postmaster address
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Oct 5,  1:37pm, <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no> wrote:
> Subject: Re: support for Postmaster address

> 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....

Couldn't we say that a host that support local adresses MUST also support
postmaster? i.e. if RCPT TO: <anybody> or RCPT TO: <anybody@thishost>
is OK, then RCPT TP: <postmaster@thishost> MUST be supported.

	- Alain Durand.