As per Relevance of the word specific, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group D.
Request for Comments: 2142 Internet Mail
Cateogry: Standards Track May 1997
MAILBOX NAMES
COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
This specification enumerates and describes Internet mail
(mailbox name @ host reference) to be used when contacting
at an organization. Mailbox names are provided for both
and business functions. Additional mailbox names and aliases are
prohibited, but organizations which support email exchanges with
Internet are encouraged to support AT LEAST each mailbox name
which the associated function exists within the organization
1. RATIONALE AND
Various Internet documents have specified mailbox names to be
when reaching the operators of the new service; for example, [RFC822
6.3, C.6] requires the presence of a <POSTMASTER@domain> mailbox
on all hosts that have an SMTP server. Other protocols have
standards for well known mailbox names, such as
NNTP (see [RFC977]), and for HTTP (see [HTTP]).
Defacto standards also exist for well known mailbox names which
nothing to do with a particular protocol, e.g.,
.
The purpose of this memo is to aggregate and specify the basic set
mailbox names which organizations need to support.
organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox
defined here, since not every organization will implement the all
the associated services. However, if a given service is offerred
then the associated mailbox name(es) must be supported, resulting
delivery to a recipient appropriate for the referenced service
role
Crocker Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
If a host is not configured to accept mail directly, but
implements a service for which this specification defines a
name, that host must have an MX RR set (see [RFC974]) and the
exchangers specified by this RR set must recognize the
host's domain name as "local" for the purpose of accepting mail
for the defined mailbox name. Note that this is true even if
advertised domain name is not the same as the host's domain name;
example, if an NNTP server's host name is DATA.RAMONA.VIX.COM yet
advertises the domain name VIX.COM in its "Path:" headers, then
must be deliverable to both
, even though these addresses might
delivered to different final destinations
The scope of a well known mailbox name is its domain name.
accepting mail on behalf of a domain must accept and
process mailbox names for that domain, even if the server, itself
does not support the associated service. So, for example, if an
server advertises the organization's top level domain in "Path:"
headers (see [RFC977]) the mail exchangers for that top level
must accept mail to even if the mail exchanger
do not, themselves, serve the NNTP protocol
2.
For well known names that are not related to specific protocols,
the organization's top level domain name are required to be valid
For example, if an Internet service provider's domain name
COMPANY.COM, then the address must be valid
supported, even though the customers whose activity
complaints use hosts with more specific domain names
SHELL1.COMPANY.COM. Note, however, that it is valid and
to support mailbox names for sub-domains, as appropriate
Mailbox names must be recognized independent of character case.
example, POSTMASTER, postmaster, Postmaster, PostMaster, and
PoStMaStEr are to be treated the same, with delivery to the
mailbox
Implementations of these well known names need to take account of
expectations of the senders who will use them. Sending back
automatic mail acknowledgement is usually helpful (though we
caution against the possibility of "duelling mail robots" and
resulting mail loops).
Crocker Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
3. BUSINESS-RELATED MAILBOX
These names are related to an organization's line-of-
activities. The INFO name is often tied to an autoresponder, with
range of standard files available
MAILBOX AREA
----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
INFO Marketing Packaged information about
organization, products, and/
services, as
MARKETING Marketing Product marketing
marketing
SALES Sales Product purchase
SUPPORT Customer Service Problems with product
4. NETWORK OPERATIONS MAILBOX
Operations addresses are intended to provide recourse for customers
providers and others who are experiencing difficulties with
organization's Internet service
MAILBOX AREA
----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
ABUSE Customer Relations Inappropriate public
NOC Network Operations Network
SECURITY Network Security Security bulletins or
5. SUPPORT MAILBOX NAMES FOR SPECIFIC INTERNET
For major Internet protocol services, there is a mailbox defined
receiving queries and reports. (Synonyms are included, here, due
their extensive installed base.)
MAILBOX SERVICE
----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822]
HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035]
USENET NNTP [RFC977]
NEWS NNTP Synonym for
WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068]
WWW HTTP Synonym for
UUCP UUCP [RFC976]
FTP FTP [RFC959]
Crocker Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
6. MAILING LIST ADMINISTRATION
Mailing lists have an administrative mailbox name to which add/
requests and other meta-queries can be sent
For a mailing list whose submission mailbox name is
there MUST be the administrative mailbox name
Distribution List management software, such as MajorDomo
Listserv, also have a single mailbox name associated with
software on that system -- usually the name of the software --
than a particular list on that system. Use of such mailbox
requires participants to know the type of list software employed
the site. This is problematic. Consequently
LIST-SPECIFIC (-REQUEST) MAILBOX NAMES ARE REQUIRED
INDEPENDENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC LIST
MAILBOX NAMES
7. DOMAIN NAME SERVICE ADMINISTRATION
In DNS (see [RFC1033], [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]), the Start
Authority record (SOA RR) has a field for specifying the mailbox
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
exchanger hosts to direct zone administration mail to the
mailbox
For simplicity and regularity, it is strongly recommended that
well known mailbox name HOSTMASTER always be
.
Crocker Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2142 Mailbox Names May 1997
8. AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM
Several Internet registries implement mailing lists for
System contacts. So, for example, mail sent to
at the time of this writing reach the technical contact
Autonomous System 3557 in the BGP4 (see [RFC1654], [RFC1655]
[RFC1656]).
Not all Autonomous Systems are registered with all registries
however, and so undeliverable mailbox names under this scheme
be treated as an inconvenience rather than as an error or a
violation
9. SECURITY
Denial of service attacks (flooding a mailbox with junk) will
easier after this document becomes a standard, since more
will support the same set of mailbox names
10.
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,
821, Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
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",
976, Bell Laboratories, February 1986.
[RFC977] Kantor, B., et al, "Network News Transfer Protocol:
Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News",
977, University of California, February 1986.
[RFC1033] Lottor, M., "Domain administrators operations guide",
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
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
Protocol in the Internet", RFC 1655, T.J. Watson Research Center,
Corp., July 1994.
[RFC1656] Traina, P., "BGP-4 Protocol Document Roadmap
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.
This specification derived from an earlier draft written by
Vixie. Thanks to Stan Barber, Michael Dillon, James Aldridge, J. D
Falk, Peter Kaminski, Brett Watson, Russ Wright, Neal McBurnett,
Ed Morin for their comments on that draft
12. AUTHOR'S
Dave
Internet Mail
127 Segre Ave
Santa Cruz,
Phone: +1 408 246 8253
EMail: dcrocker@imc.
Crocker Standards Track [Page 6]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
