<<< Chronological >>> | Author Index Subject Index | <<< Threads >>> |
Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:53:56 -0800
At 06:05p -0500 01/07/2004, der Mouse didst inscribe upon an electronic papyrus:
>> Um. I must be msising something. What, pray tell, do you think the >> administrative conjtact address _is_ for, if not administrative >> issues? Or do you not consider disciplining spammous users to be an >> adminsitrative matter? > We find it effective to use a dedicated role mailbox for each of (a > small number of) categories of administrative issues. We take care > to advertise this in the whois records for our networks. ....in a non-machine-parseable format. Anything that depends on a human is reading the entry for correct functioning is arguably broken; the reason for having a strict defined format is so that the thing is machine parseable.
Or perhaps "we" should set up a separate database covering ripe, arin, and all the rest ("reportabuse.net"? "abuse.info"?), which could also double as some sort of verification mechanism (supplementary to other mechanisms).If you think there should be a way of tagging some addresses with "this address is for abuse issues", well, I agree with you; that's what putting up an abuse contact would be about. (If RIPE doesn't support abuse contacts - I don't know - then perhaps you as a RIPE constituent should work on having that changed, because it's causing you trouble.)
-Walter
- Post To The List:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- From: der Mouse
- Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- References:
- [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- From: Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- From: der Mouse
- Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- From: Niall O'Reilly
- Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- From: der Mouse
- [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
<<< Chronological >>> | Author Subject | <<< Threads >>> |