RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 2142, "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", May 1997
Source of RFC: LegacyArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 8692
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: mirabilos
Date Reported: 2026-01-02
Throughout the document, when it says:
NNTP (see [[10]RFC977]), and <WEBMASTER@domain> for HTTP (see [[11]HTTP]). […] WEBMASTER HTTP [[23]RFC 2068] WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER […] [HTTP] Berners-Lee, T., et al, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", [56]RFC 1945, May 1996.
It should say:
NNTP (see [[10]RFC977]). […] [ … delete the other content shown …]
Notes:
The authors mis-interpreted both RFC 1945 (HTTP 1.0) and 2068 (HTTP 1.1), in both which there is only one single mention of “webmaster@”, and it is:
- an example
- for the HTTP From header
- which is a *request* header, not a response header
- and as such shown by the HTTP *client*, not server
- to submit information about the bot to the webserver operator
So, the webmaster@ address example is rather an example for a contact point for a bot operator (e.g. search engine — and Yandex at least is currently using it for this purpose).
Oh, and, the form title is wrong, it must be “Submit new RFC erratum”. “Errata” is plural of the singular word “erratum”.
Status: Held for Document Update (3)
RFC 2142, "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", May 1997
Source of RFC: LegacyArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 1082
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Frank Ellermann
Date Reported: 2007-11-20
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Held: 2010-09-15
Section 5 says:
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS [...] USENET NNTP [RFC977] NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET
It should say:
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS [...] USENET NNTP [RFC1849] NEWSMASTER NNTP Synonym for USENET
Notes:
RFC 977 (obsoleted by RFC 3977) as well as RFC 1036 (obsoleted by RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor) don't specify rôle accounts USENET or NEWS.
Section 1 states that "Other protocols have defacto standards for well known mailbox names, such as <USENET@domain> for NNTP (see [RFC977])", however the IETF USEFOR WG didn't add just as little as an informative reference to RFC 2142.
IESG NOTE (2010-09-15): The foregoing text is corrupted, however the intent is clearly that [son-of-1036] is the proper reference for the USENET mailbox convention; note that in March 2010 [son-of-1036] was published as RFC 1849. --Peter Saint-Andre
Errata ID: 1763
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nick Levinson
Date Reported: 2009-04-15
Held for Document Update by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Held: 2010-09-02
Section 1 says:
Most organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names defined
here, since not every organization will implement the all of the associated
^^^
services.
It should say:
Most organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names defined here, since not every organization will implement all of the associated services.
Errata ID: 1764
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nick Levinson
Date Reported: 2009-04-15
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Held: 2010-09-15
Section 1 & 2 says:
top level domain
It should say:
organization's principal domain name
Notes:
1. The phrase "top level domain" seems to mean 'second-level and top level domains together', and perhaps 'third- to top level domains together' in cases like <example.co.uk>. It is erroneous now that _top level domain_ (_TLD_) is specifically only what comes after the last dot in a domain, and nonreserved TLDs are so registered at IANA.org.
2. I would rather someone else propose replacement phrasing.
3. This is submitted 2009-04-16.
EDITOR'S NOTE (2010-09-15): This matter was discussed on the app-discuss and dnsext mailing lists, and consensus emerged on the phrase "organization's principal domain name". --Peter Saint-Andre