[comp.mail.uucp] Standard site aliases, are there any?

campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell) (08/11/90)

Sender: 
Reply-To: campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell)
Distribution: world
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

Has anyone come up with a standard set of aliases such as:
	postmaster
	support
	info
	usenet

This would help standardize requests for information when you
don't know anyone at the site.  I have had mail bounced when
addressed to site!postmaster, and I thought that that was
supposed to be universal!

Including a standard alias file with smail or other MTAs would go
a long way towards this.

Bill
-- 
....microsoft--\                    Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
...uw-entropy----!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way
....fluke------/                    Mercer Island, Wa 98040
....hplsla----/                     (206) 232-4164

tp@mccall.com (08/13/90)

In article <5376@thebes.Thalatta.COM>, campbell@Thalatta.COM (Bill Campbell) writes:
> Has anyone come up with a standard set of aliases such as:
> 	postmaster
> 	support
> 	info
> 	usenet

postmaster and usenet are defined by standards, and should be supported by
any site following those standards.

> This would help standardize requests for information when you
> don't know anyone at the site.  I have had mail bounced when
> addressed to site!postmaster, and I thought that that was
> supposed to be universal!

postmaster is specified by RFC822. If you are using site!postmaster to
reach a site, it is possibly not a registered domain. In this case, there
is no reason to expect the site to conform to RFC822. If they run a smart
mailer, they might, and if they have a registered domain, they have to (to
be in compliance with the standard). Repeat after me: "uucp has no
standards". 

If you know it is a unix system, try "root". If you know it is VMS, try
"system". (Note that on many machines, nobody reads mail to these names.)
If you know it is an MS-DOS system, your guess is as good as mine. If they
have a uucp map entry, there should be at least one valid email address in
it. If you know they connect to someone (i.e. the hop before them on the
!-path), try reaching someone there.

usenet, by the way, is a contact address for news, not mail. It is
specified as a standard alias in RFC1036, which defines standards for news
transmission. This SHOULD be a valid alias at any site that runs news. 

Any RFC822 site that doesn't support postmaster or any news site that
doesn't support usenet is improperly installed. If you can figure out how
to send them mail, tell them so! :-)

> Including a standard alias file with smail or other MTAs would go
> a long way towards this.

But who would the standard alias file point postmaster at! :-)
-- 
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (08/17/90)

tp@mccall.com writes:

>postmaster is specified by RFC822. If you are using site!postmaster to
>reach a site, it is possibly not a registered domain. In this case, there
>is no reason to expect the site to conform to RFC822. If they run a smart
>mailer, they might, and if they have a registered domain, they have to (to
>be in compliance with the standard). Repeat after me: "uucp has no
>standards". 

	For an environment that "has no standards", interoperability is
	rather remarkable! It might be more precise to argue that:
	1) uucp does not address issues of concern to some users;
	2) uucp does not behave in accord with some users' requirements;
	3) uucp does not insist that users act in some desired way.

	Lighten up, guys! UUCP is a remarkably elegant solution to many
	requirements. If it doesn't meet your needs, find something that
	does. But try to keep things in perspective.

tp@mccall.com (08/20/90)

In article <30@raysnec.UUCP>, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:
> tp@mccall.com writes:
> 
>>                               ...   Repeat after me: "uucp has no
>>standards". 
> 
> 	For an environment that "has no standards", interoperability is
> 	rather remarkable! It might be more precise to argue that:
> 	1) uucp does not address issues of concern to some users;
> 	2) uucp does not behave in accord with some users' requirements;
> 	3) uucp does not insist that users act in some desired way.
> 
> 	Lighten up, guys! UUCP is a remarkably elegant solution to many
> 	requirements. If it doesn't meet your needs, find something that
> 	does. But try to keep things in perspective.

All that is true too, but so is what I said. A standard means you can count
on it. The "uucp mail network" has no standards (the uucp protocol is
another matter). You can't count on things in the uucp world, like the
existance of a postmaster alias (the original question).

Remember that for a long time C had no actual standard, but was arguably
the most portable language in wide usage! You can have a high level of
interoperability without standards.

The original poster was asking about standard mail aliases. There are none
for a uucp site that is not RFC822 conformant. If I send mail to postmaster
on an internet site and get a bounce saying invalid user name, I have a
legitimate gripe. I can tell them they are doing it wrong. Not so for a
uucp site. That is the effect of standards.
-- 
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA