Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: IRT abuse-mailbox things...

  • From: der Mouse mouse@localhost
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:25:23 -0500 (EST)

> And why do you think so few people use RP records when it was created
> as far back as in 1990?

Because so few people are aware of them.

> Just because I am authorative for some ip-address doesn't mean I am
> the responsible person.

Perhaps not - but the responsible person is, by definition,
authoritative (or sie wouldn't be responsible - except perhaps in an
organization so screwed up as to give responsibility without
authority).

> RP record abuse.domain.com can never be translated into an email
> address.

I don't see why not.  The algorithm for doing so is quite clearly
spelled out in section 8 of RFC1035 (RFC1183 specifies that RP records
use the same encoding).  (This mapping has some problems - notably, it
compels the affected mailboxes to use case-insensitive local parts, and
it cannot represent a mailbox whose local-part is longer than 63 octets
- but for these purposes they are not fatal.)

> There is no such thing as a responsible person.

If there is a network for which no person is responsible, I for one
have no desire to communicate with it in any way.

> At the other hand, I also dislike mandatory abuse-mailbox fields as I
> disagree it should be a requirement to be reachable by email for
> abuse issues.

I would very much appreciate a list of netblocks you run (and, to the
extent available, whose management agrees with you on this), so I can
preemptively block them.  I have no interest in communicating (beyond
what is necessary to identify them as such) with any entity that
uninterested in receiving abuse reports by mail.  (It's why I'm
blocking most of .uk right now, for example.)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B