This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters  


Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > August 2006 > "webmater@" - which RFC





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author "webmater@" - which RFC
Andy Mabbett

2006-08-21, 6:52 pm


Please can someone tell me the number of the rfc mandating (or
suggesting - which is it?) the use of "webmaster@" as contact address
for domains with a web presence?

--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
David Dorward

2006-08-21, 6:52 pm

Andy Mabbett wrote:

> Please can someone tell me the number of the rfc mandating (or
> suggesting - which is it?) the use of "webmaster@" as contact address
> for domains with a web presence?


http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2142.txt

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Mark Goodge

2006-08-21, 6:52 pm

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:05:49 +0100, Andy Mabbett put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>Please can someone tell me the number of the rfc mandating (or
>suggesting - which is it?) the use of "webmaster@" as contact address
>for domains with a web presence?


That would be RFC2142. Whether it mandates, or merely specifies, the
standard role addresses is a matter of debate (as, indeed, is the
question of whether it is still relevant anyway).

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
Charles Sweeney

2006-08-21, 6:52 pm

Andy Mabbett wrote

> he rfc mandating (or suggesting - which is it?)


Requesting?

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
Andy Dingley

2006-08-22, 6:41 pm


Charles Sweeney wrote:

> Andy Mabbett wrote
>
>
> Requesting?


Imposible to tell. rfc 2142 (authoring of) pre-dates rfc 2119
(publication of), so the compliance terms aren't formally defined.

"organizations which support email exchanges with the
Internet are encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name "

So that's a strong recomendation, but not a MUST or maybe even a SHOULD

Charles Sweeney

2006-08-22, 6:41 pm

Andy Dingley wrote

>
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
> Imposible to tell. rfc 2142 (authoring of) pre-dates rfc 2119
> (publication of), so the compliance terms aren't formally defined.
>
> "organizations which support email exchanges with the
> Internet are encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name "
>
> So that's a strong recomendation, but not a MUST or maybe even a

SHOULD

I was thinking about "requesting" as in rfc "Request For Comments".

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
Sponsored Links


Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com  Software forum  Computer Hardware reviews