From owner-cvs-etc  Sat Aug  9 08:35:31 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-etc>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA28526
          for cvs-etc-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GndRsh.aac.dev.com (GndRsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA28514;
          Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by GndRsh.aac.dev.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id IAA11621; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Message-Id: <199708091534.IAA11621@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc aliases
In-Reply-To: <989.871140528@critter.dk.tfs.com> from Poul-Henning Kamp at "Aug 9, 97 05:28:48 pm"
To: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG,
        cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Rod, 
> 
> You're perfectly capable of editing /etc/aliases.

Yea, and so are YOU!

The file /etc/aliases gives us a method to deal with this,
placeing what YOU think is correct in it is applying POLICY,
FreeBSD should not impose policy as the policy is almost always
wrong.

> 
> Poul-Henning
> 
> In message <199708091526.IAA11577@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" write
> s:
> >> > I _hope_ these are commented out by default as BSD has traditional
> >> > only enable aliaes for accounts that exist in the default /etc/passwd
> >> 
> >> Does that include the currently existing "postmaster"? :-)
> >
> >There is a difference between those.. MAILER-DAEMON is required by
> >sendmail, sendmail is a standard supplied program, and MAILER-DAEMON
> >I believe even appears as required by the RFC's.  The indirection
> >throught the alias postmaster to root seems to be redundunt and I
> >have no idea why they did that.
> >
> >> 
> >> Seriously, I think these new entries are worthwhile *uncommented* so
> >> that those legions of new systems don't bounce abuse, as has become an
> >> oh-so-annoying tradition against a hoped-for defacto standard.
> >
> >I really want ``abuse, webmaster and hostmaster'' mail BOUNCED on
> >80% of the systems I administer, that mail shouldn't be sent to
> >dedicated routers, personal systems, etc, etc.  
> >
> >If you want a ``hoped-for defacto standard'' to do any good
> >get these added to the host requirements RFC.
> >
> >As I see it right now it is just 3 more ways for root to get
> >junk email.  (Yes, the spammers are not filtering ``webmaster, hostmaster
> >or abuse'' for there bulk email lists, and some of them even cull
> >the NIC data specifically LOOKING for new sites and hit both
> >webmaster and hostmaster trying to sell you bulk email lists.
> >Please don't give them yet another way to fill my mail box!

-- 
Rod Grimes                                      rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation, Inc.                   Reliable computers for FreeBSD