Talk:Postmaster (computing)
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Postmaster (computing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Explanify?!
[edit]Did I understand this correctly, If I'm posting for an address at A.com to B.com and there is an error, a mail from postmaster@B.com will be sent to me as a reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.148.208.105 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the receiving MTA Configuration settings and also if email is requesting MDN (Message Disposition Notification) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.236.78 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
rfc-ignorant.org makes no sense
[edit]Why is there posted the "rfc-ignorant.org" in the weblinks. This has absolute no information. Also because the Site does not seem to be maintained very often. Who in the world interests him or herself if a domain is postmaster@ ignorant or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.180.247 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The "rfc-ignorant.org" service quickly became notorious and irrelevant for enforcing made up interpretations that were contrary to best practices. However originally, it was apparently a good-faith effort to warn other system admins about mismanaged domains not worthy of cooperation. At some point in time since your comment, references to rfc-ignorant.org were removed from the page. ~2026-25548-8 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Unexplained scare-banner added in 2014.
[edit]Back in 2014, someone added a scare-banner tag that this page relied on too few sources. But since no explanation was added to this talk page, I suggest that the tag be removed by a logged in editor as soon as possible ~2026-25548-8 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- There was indeed a lack of reliable sources; this page initially only cited the RFC, which isn't ideal for Wikipedia since it's a primary source. Unfortunately this sort of thing is hard to research for since it's a really specific element of something much larger, although I do think the topic is notable enough to warrant its own page
- Fortunately I was able to scrape some good references out of two books on email so i think the article is in a better state now, and I've dropped the maintenance tags Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 14:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)