home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group D. Crocker
- Request for Comments: 2142 Internet Mail Consortium
- Cateogry: Standards Track May 1997
-
-
- MAILBOX NAMES FOR
- COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND FUNCTIONS
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
- Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
- improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
- Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
- and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- ABSTRACT
-
- This specification enumerates and describes Internet mail addresses
- (mailbox name @ host reference) to be used when contacting personnel
- at an organization. Mailbox names are provided for both operations
- and business functions. Additional mailbox names and aliases are not
- prohibited, but organizations which support email exchanges with the
- Internet are encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name for
- which the associated function exists within the organization.
-
- 1. RATIONALE AND SCOPE
-
- Various Internet documents have specified mailbox names to be used
- when reaching the operators of the new service; for example, [RFC822
- 6.3, C.6] requires the presence of a <POSTMASTER@domain> mailbox name
- on all hosts that have an SMTP server. Other protocols have defacto
- standards for well known mailbox names, such as <USENET@domain> for
- NNTP (see [RFC977]), and <WEBMASTER@domain> for HTTP (see [HTTP]).
- Defacto standards also exist for well known mailbox names which have
- nothing to do with a particular protocol, e.g., <ABUSE@domain> and
- <TROUBLE@domain>.
-
- The purpose of this memo is to aggregate and specify the basic set of
- mailbox names which organizations need to support. Most
- organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names
- defined here, since not every organization will implement the all of
- the associated services. However, if a given service is offerred,
- then the associated mailbox name(es) must be supported, resulting in
- delivery to a recipient appropriate for the referenced service or
- role.
-
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 1]
-
- RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
-
-
- If a host is not configured to accept mail directly, but it
- implements a service for which this specification defines a mailbox
- name, that host must have an MX RR set (see [RFC974]) and the mail
- exchangers specified by this RR set must recognize the referenced
- host's domain name as "local" for the purpose of accepting mail bound
- for the defined mailbox name. Note that this is true even if the
- advertised domain name is not the same as the host's domain name; for
- example, if an NNTP server's host name is DATA.RAMONA.VIX.COM yet it
- advertises the domain name VIX.COM in its "Path:" headers, then mail
- must be deliverable to both <USENET@VIX.COM> and
- <USENET@DATA.RAMONA.VIX.COM>, even though these addresses might be
- delivered to different final destinations.
-
- The scope of a well known mailbox name is its domain name. Servers
- accepting mail on behalf of a domain must accept and correctly
- process mailbox names for that domain, even if the server, itself,
- does not support the associated service. So, for example, if an NNTP
- server advertises the organization's top level domain in "Path:"
- headers (see [RFC977]) the mail exchangers for that top level domain
- must accept mail to <USENET@domain> even if the mail exchanger hosts
- do not, themselves, serve the NNTP protocol.
-
- 2. INVARIANTS
-
- For well known names that are not related to specific protocols, only
- the organization's top level domain name are required to be valid.
- For example, if an Internet service provider's domain name is
- COMPANY.COM, then the <ABUSE@COMPANY.COM> address must be valid and
- supported, even though the customers whose activity generates
- complaints use hosts with more specific domain names like
- SHELL1.COMPANY.COM. Note, however, that it is valid and encouraged
- to support mailbox names for sub-domains, as appropriate.
-
- Mailbox names must be recognized independent of character case. For
- example, POSTMASTER, postmaster, Postmaster, PostMaster, and even
- PoStMaStEr are to be treated the same, with delivery to the same
- mailbox.
-
- Implementations of these well known names need to take account of the
- expectations of the senders who will use them. Sending back an
- automatic mail acknowledgement is usually helpful (though we suggest
- caution against the possibility of "duelling mail robots" and the
- resulting mail loops).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 2]
-
- RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
-
-
- 3. BUSINESS-RELATED MAILBOX NAMES
-
- These names are related to an organization's line-of-business
- activities. The INFO name is often tied to an autoresponder, with a
- range of standard files available.
-
- MAILBOX AREA USAGE
- ----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
- INFO Marketing Packaged information about the
- organization, products, and/or
- services, as appropriate
- MARKETING Marketing Product marketing and
- marketing communications
- SALES Sales Product purchase information
- SUPPORT Customer Service Problems with product or
- service
-
-
- 4. NETWORK OPERATIONS MAILBOX NAMES
-
- Operations addresses are intended to provide recourse for customers,
- providers and others who are experiencing difficulties with the
- organization's Internet service.
-
- MAILBOX AREA USAGE
- ----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
- ABUSE Customer Relations Inappropriate public behaviour
- NOC Network Operations Network infrastructure
- SECURITY Network Security Security bulletins or queries
-
-
- 5. SUPPORT MAILBOX NAMES FOR SPECIFIC INTERNET SERVICES
-
- For major Internet protocol services, there is a mailbox defined for
- receiving queries and reports. (Synonyms are included, here, due to
- their extensive installed base.)
-
- MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS
- ----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
- POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822]
- HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035]
- USENET NNTP [RFC977]
- NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET
- WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068]
- WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER
- UUCP UUCP [RFC976]
- FTP FTP [RFC959]
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 3]
-
- RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
-
-
- 6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX
-
- Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/drop
- requests and other meta-queries can be sent.
-
- For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is:
-
- <LIST@DOMAIN>
-
- there MUST be the administrative mailbox name:
-
- <LIST-REQUEST@DOMAIN>
-
- Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo and
- Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with the
- software on that system -- usually the name of the software -- rather
- than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox names
- requires participants to know the type of list software employed at
- the site. This is problematic. Consequently:
-
- LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED,
- INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST SOFTWARE
- MAILBOX NAMES.
-
- 7. DOMAIN NAME SERVICE ADMINISTRATION MAILBOX
-
- In DNS (see [RFC1033], [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]), the Start Of
- Authority record (SOA RR) has a field for specifying the mailbox name
- of the zone's administrator.
-
- This field must be a simple word without metacharacters (such as "%"
- or "!" or "::"), and a mail alias should be used on the relevant mail
- exchanger hosts to direct zone administration mail to the appropriate
- mailbox.
-
- For simplicity and regularity, it is strongly recommended that the
- well known mailbox name HOSTMASTER always be used
- <HOSTMASTER@domain>.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 4]
-
- RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
-
-
- 8. AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM MAILBOX
-
- Several Internet registries implement mailing lists for Autonomous
- System contacts. So, for example, mail sent to <AS3557@RA.NET> will
- at the time of this writing reach the technical contact for
- Autonomous System 3557 in the BGP4 (see [RFC1654], [RFC1655] and
- [RFC1656]).
-
- Not all Autonomous Systems are registered with all registries,
- however, and so undeliverable mailbox names under this scheme should
- be treated as an inconvenience rather than as an error or a standards
- violation.
-
- 9. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
-
- Denial of service attacks (flooding a mailbox with junk) will be
- easier after this document becomes a standard, since more systems
- will support the same set of mailbox names.
-
- 10. REFERENCES
-
- [RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC
- 821, Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
-
- [RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text
- messages", STD 11, RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982.
-
- [RFC959] Postel, J., and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)",
- STD 9, RFC 959, Information Sciences Institute, October 1985.
-
- [RFC974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system", STD 14,
- RFC 974, CSNET CIC BBN Laboratories Inc, January 1986.
-
- [RFC976] Horton, M., "UUCP mail interchange format standard", RFC
- 976, Bell Laboratories, February 1986.
-
- [RFC977] Kantor, B., et al, "Network News Transfer Protocol: A
- Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News", RFC
- 977, University of California, February 1986.
-
- [RFC1033] Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide", RFC
- 1033, SRI International, November 1987.
-
- [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
- STD 13, RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 5]
-
- RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
-
-
- [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
- Specification" STD 13, RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute,
- November 1987.
-
- [RFC1654] Rekhter, Y., et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP- 4)",
- RFC 1654, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., July 1994.
-
- [RFC1655] Rekhter, Y., et al, "Application of the Border Gateway
- Protocol in the Internet", RFC 1655, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM
- Corp., July 1994.
-
- [RFC1656] Traina, P., "BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap and
- Implementation Experience", RFC 1656, cisco Systems, July 1994.
-
- [HTTP] Berners-Lee, T., et al, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
-
- 11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-
- This specification derived from an earlier draft written by Paul
- Vixie. Thanks to Stan Barber, Michael Dillon, James Aldridge, J. D.
- Falk, Peter Kaminski, Brett Watson, Russ Wright, Neal McBurnett, and
- Ed Morin for their comments on that draft.
-
- 12. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
-
- Dave Crocker
- Internet Mail Consortium
- 127 Segre Ave.
- Santa Cruz, CA
-
- Phone: +1 408 246 8253
- EMail: dcrocker@imc.org
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Crocker Standards Track [Page 6]
-
-