[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BULK] Re: SORBS contact

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan <matthew at sorbs.net>wrote:

> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
>   [snip]
later in the document,  Webmaster@ is not in the required list.  As per
> my previous email, the webservers (all of them) report another email


I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting  optional addresses such as
webmaster at .
I would  fault SORBS for   automatically listing someone e-mailing
webmaster@ though,
as implied above.     Whether the actual RFC existed or not.

It's probably true that all the standard addresses are likely to be subject
to abuse.   info@  sure is.

However,   they should not be listed without at least analyzing the content
of the actual message.
To decide if it is in fact abuse,  OR  if it's just a human failure,
somebody attempting to contact
an admin address/service  that does not exist.

There mere act of attempting to contact multiple standard addresses alone,
is certainly
not proof of abuse.