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: 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:

> anthony@localhost:~> whois -h
> admin-c:      UNA2-RIPE
> e-mail:       abuse@localhost
> e-mail:       security@localhost
> e-mail:       sysman@localhost
> nic-hdl:      UNA2-RIPE
> remarks:      contact abuse@localhost re SPAM only
> remarks:      contact security@localhost re other abuse
> remarks:      contact sysman@localhost 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 abuse@localhost.

So would I.  However, an automated tool has no way of picking
abuse@localhost as any more (or less) appropriate than security@localhost or
sysman@localhost 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	       mouse@localhost
/ \ 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 >>>