Re: webmaster@website
Josh Cohen (josh@netscape.com)
Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:02:24 -0800 (PST)
>
> 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/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------