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

Re: [[email protected]] Spam-RBL, anyone?

  • From: der Mouse < >
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:20:27 -0500 (EST)

>>> [...admin contact not correct for spam reports for 137.43/16...]
>> [ isn't the admin contact the right place?...]
> That is a little puzzling (unless I am missing something, always a
> possibility), since:

> [email protected]:~> whois -h
> admin-c:      UNA2-RIPE
> e-mail:       [email protected]
> e-mail:       [email protected]
> e-mail:       [email protected]
> nic-hdl:      UNA2-RIPE
> remarks:      contact [email protected] re SPAM only
> remarks:      contact [email protected] re other abuse
> remarks:      contact [email protected] re general operations

> I would myself have interpreted the above data as indicating that the
> correct address to complain to in respect of Unsolicited Bulk Email
> abuse actually originating from is [email protected]

So would I.  However, an automated tool has no way of picking
[email protected] as any more (or less) appropriate than [email protected] or
[email protected] for spam reports.  (Actually it does, because one of them
matches the RFC 2142 spec.  But I digress....)

Presumably the problem is that such robots send to all three addresses,
two of which are considered inappropriate by the person who was writing
about how that was not the right thing for that netblock.

> However, it is possible that [...] almost all such notifications
> [are] sent entirely in error.

Yes, this is another problem.  But that's a mistake of _whether_ to
generate a report for that netblock, not of _where_ to send such a
report once the decision to generate it has been made.

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

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