You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

  • From: Walter Ian Kaye < >
  • 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. 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.

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.)
Or perhaps "we" should set up a separate database covering ripe, arin, and all the rest (""? ""?), which could also double as some sort of verification mechanism (supplementary to other mechanisms).


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>