Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA04555; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:49:45 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:49:20 -0400
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id QAA04516; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:49:18 -0400
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id QAA02072; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:49:17 -0400
Message-Id: <199510052049.QAA02072@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
cc: moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: support for Postmaster address 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:43:53 CDT."
             <9510051943.AA15878@dogie.macc.wisc.edu> 
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 16:49:11 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> > BTW, RFC 1123 states:
> >          A host that supports a receiver-SMTP MUST support the reserved
> >          mailbox "Postmaster".
> 
> There you go.  Any requirements about support for postmaster address
> belong in RFC1123.  They no longer (and I say never did) belong in
> RFC822, nor do they belong in RFC821.  There's no longer any reason
> to say anything about it at all.

The documents we produce will supercede the portions of 1123 that
apply to email.  From the DRUMS charter:

] The goal of this working group is to develop and review revised
] versions of RFC 821 and RFC 822, incorporating the revisions in RFC
] 974, RFC 1123, and RFC 1651.

Keith