- From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:02:24 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Cc: "Adam M. Costello" <amc@cs.berkeley.edu>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> > I don't think it's too late. It is essential that there be some such > address, and "webmaster" certainly seems to bve the logical choice. > Unfortunately, the term "webmaster" has been coopted (too strong a word?) > to refer to HTML authors and web page designers. Even so, I don't think it > would be overly confusing to use "webmaster" in way you suggest. A > secondary problem is that many people maintain multiple webs on the same > system (e.g., ISPs that provide web hosting) without having a separate > domain. Typically, this results in URLs like > > http://www.whatever.com/~whoever/ > > I'm not sure how to handle this situation. I guess the question is, does postmaster refer to the domain or the server machine. I think reality wise, postmaster refers to the server most often. (ie sendmail can only direct stuff to postmaster for mail it receives, not that the domain receives... ) So, I think its appropriate that a host running a WWW server must have a webmaster address, which goes to the system maintainer, who can then refer it to the appropriate content author. Keep in mind that the message to webmaster may not be a content issue, it may be about a server misconfiguration. In the example you mention it's usually the same server for all users, and often for all domains served by that system.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Cohen Netscape Communications Corp. Netscape Fire Department "My opinions, not Netscape's" Server Engineering josh@netscape.com http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 1997 06:03:28 UTC