Re: postmaster doc.

[Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>]

I have to agree with Peter...

From Peter Sylvester's message Thu, 30 Sep 1993 09:36:16 +0100:
}
}> What about changing the userid that is used, from "S=postmaster" to
}> "S=x400mgr"?  I know, you would still get x400mgr@dk, but that _does_
}> map to a specific PRMD, and an MD is supposed to reflect one
}> administration.  I don't expect a lot of mail to this address, and I
}> think it would be useful.
}> 
}> I would like to hear from others besides myself, Erik, and Claudio on
}> this question.  Is the idea of being able to send mail to 
}> 
}>     S=something; PRMD=xx; ADMD=yy; C=zz;
}> and
}>     S=something; ADMD=yy; C=zz;
}> 
}> a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

The entire issue arose from the fact of the Internet using
"postmaster" so any other name defeats our goal of universally using
"postmaster" in the internet.  Lets not accept any other name!

}
}All ADMDs are supposed to support certain addresses. HELPDESK for
}example which plays a similar role as postmaster in the Internet.
}
}I do not know whether these things are actually being discussed
}for example in the EEMA (sorry for the first E but I am in Europe).
}I we like to have the same things at the prmd level one should
}discuss this in the PRMD operators group. 

Yes, and all this is strictly an X.400 MD affair, outside the
jurisdiction of the Internet, though our experience should be usefully
considered by the X.400 MD operators at all levels, since they are
actually trying to build a new X.400 Global Internet.  It is
interesting to watch them do their best to ignore our experiences
while trying to do what we do better than we do it;-).  Wish them
Luck!

}
}In other words I Think it is not appropriate to have two completely
}different things defined in one document:
}
}- I consider the first problem as a clarification/amendment to
}  RFC 1327, i. e. it comes down to one sentence: If an x.400
}  domain wants to become visible in the Internet mail system
}  using a mapping rule, then the postmaster requirement
}  of the internet mail must be obeyed thus some surname=postmaster
}  ... etc.

Absolutely!  WE should only state the requirement as applying to
anyone that attaches a gateways of any kind to the Internet, so as to
support its addresses with the same support we require for anyone else
that operates a mail systems in the Internet.

}
}  We seem to have agreement and I suggest to have just a 
}  document for this and nothing else.

I agree...

}
}- Having some well defined addresses in the x.400 world is another
}  issue. 

We should wish them luck, and offer to share our experiences...\Stef