catch-all mailboxes

[dmcdivitt]

In reference to the following posting: http://forums.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=77080

A Powweb employee said in the posting that Powweb has come very close on numerous times to not having catch-all mailboxes, and that catch-all mailboxes are leftover from former days of the internet. That is flat wrong.

When Powweb was purchased a year or so ago, catch-all mailboxes by domain were discontinued, and one catch-all per account was implemented instead. That hurt me somewhat, but I modified my software.

I run mailing-list, discussion-list, distribution-list software I wrote myself. I do not send mail through Powweb, but through my cable company ISP and three Yahoo accounts I pay for. I do however receive all email through Powweb. It is low volume and most of what I get is spam. It is essential that I receive all email that comes into the domain since all is downloaded, and the left portion of the address is interrogated programatically.

I wish Powweb employees would not make off-the-cuff remarks regarding Powweb policy. It would also help if Powweb employees would not make generalized statements that do not represent all their customers. I have been using Powweb for several years. I like the service and am satisfied. I feel Powweb works really hard to keep things working well.

If Powweb stops catch-all mailboxes I would have to immediately move elsewhere, and that would be a severe inconvenience. If such does happen I hope we are advised a long time in advance.

[IanS]

In reference to the following posting: http://forums.powweb.com/showthread.php?t=77080

A Powweb employee said in the posting that Powweb has come very close on numerous times to not having catch-all mailboxes, and that catch-all mailboxes are leftover from former days of the internet. That is flat wrong.What is flat wrong about the statement? I'm not, and I don't suppose you are, part of the behind the scenes discussions. Internal debates about the use of catch-all's are to be expected if they're abused by a small minority of customers or would-be spammers.

I wish Powweb employees would not make off-the-cuff remarks regarding Powweb policy. It would also help if Powweb employees would not make generalized statements that do not represent all their customers. Staff who visit here are very careful about everything that they say. It may appear to be an 'off the cuff' remark, but it will be carefully considered, even if it isn't 'an official comment'. As is noted, sometimes the comments are a personal opinion, but it is made clear when that differs from the 'Official Powweb Opinion.'

[dmcdivitt]

The point is, that a broad statement was made, and a perspective was given, without considering the different ligitimate ways Powweb customers use the service. I do not appreciate that. Do you live in a bottle and assume everyone should be stuffed into the same bottle as yourself? When people don't like something, they have a responsibility to express that dislike, otherwise they deserve what they get. I do not like the statement made by Powweb staff. Is that clear enough for you?

[IanS]

You are unable to say what was or wasn't considered by anyone else before they contributed to these forums. Members of staff don't post without careful consideration. Even if they did, as said elsewhere, it is Powweb's place here and they're entitled to do many things we don't like. If we don't like it we can move out.

[dmcdivitt]

My original statement called into question the perspective made that catch-all mailboxes are a historical relic. That is wrong. People such as myself have a legitimate need for catch-all mailboxes. This particular need has remained pretty much unchanged. Even when the internet and email first began there was no one who read any and all email that came into an internet domain, but the practice of directing postmaster@, webmaster@, support@, sales@, etc., were widespread. The question has to do with what value non standard emails might have. Because people use nonstandard emails in different ways I seriously doubt anyone in charge at Powweb would choose just to divert non standard emails off into space, assuming they are unnecessary for everyone.

[IanS]

My original statement called into question the perspective made that catch-all mailboxes are a historical relic. That is wrong.They existed. They have been considerably MISUSED. People such as myself have a legitimate need for catch-all mailboxes. You can do what you are likley to be doing with catch-alls in other ways, just not as conviently. This particular need has remained pretty much unchanged. Even when the internet and email first began there was no one who read any and all email that came into an internet domain, but the practice of directing postmaster@, webmaster@, support@, sales@, etc., were widespread. Forwarding is would still be available, so simply set up the forward. The question has to do with what value non standard emails might have. Because people use nonstandard emails in different ways I seriously doubt anyone in charge at Powweb would choose just to divert non standard emails off into space, assuming they are unnecessary for everyone.
They haven't done so yet. They wouldn't divert it off into space but bounce back a message of some sort to the sender, probably 'No such mailbox exists' - which would be true for wbemaster@domain.com a typo on webmaster@domain.com - The original statement wasn't about how un-necessary they were, but about how they're now heavily misused by spammers and how removing them would be part of the battle against spammers.

You're right, not everyone reads everything into a mailbox, but many do otherwise virus and other payloads would be worthless and spam would be worthless to the sender as well as the receiver.

[dmcdivitt]

Your comments indicate you still do not get the point. No, what I do with a catch-all mailbox cannot be done in another way. An email discussion list uses many different email addresses such as list@, list-owner@, list-subscribe@, list-options@, list-whatever@. This represents client-side processing, which is different from server-side processing. To do client side-processing it is necessary to get all email that comes into the domain. Since Powweb now provides unlimited mailboxes, it would be possible I guess to set filters and grab only the specific addresses used across all mailing lists, diverting that into one box, or possibly one box for each list, including commands for the list. That is an alternative to the way I do it now, but it would also make my client side software more complicated. Server-side configuration would be more complicated, too. Mailing-list, discussion-list, listserv, listproc, majordomo software have always worked as I describe here, whether that functionality is placed on the server or client side. The point is whether to continue allowing customers the ability to examine email headers programatically, and what you do not realize is the need some customers have to do that. Some people such as myself don't use email communications in the standard fashion.

I like the way my personal email address and a few other special addresses I use can be diverted into their own box, first, and the remainder go to catch-all.

It is appropriate for Powweb to discourage use of catch-all mailboxes if such are not needed. Why just let the trash stack up? If never used, it should be bounced or ignored without further processing. The point here is the short-sightedness of some people to see, or their inability to acknowledge, that people use email different ways. It is nice to have a platform or service that provides all the functionality required. I like it! I do not want it changed! I do not want to have to take my business somewhere else!

Does this make sense to you, or do you need further explanation?