> > people who'used' rfc-ignorant, i dont use it any more, i cant afford it. i > > took the advice of another list member and removed them.
To each their own, according to their needs and users wishes. (I dont use them right now either...) > The RFCs are not hard rules. They are widely accepted standards. > RFC-Ignorant is promoting the idea that the RFCs should be hard rules. I > disagree with them. Cant blame you, but we have all suffered from people not making the slightest attempt to follow them > Basically it states that if you are an ISP you MUST have abuse@, ftp@, > hostmaster@, info@, marketing@, news@, noc@, postmaster@, sales@, security@, > support@, usenet@, uucp@, webmaster@, and www@ <yourdomain>. > 2) It makes for admin issues if anything changes. > a) Smaller ISPs have one person do all these things, larger ones > have many, so on so forth. The bigger ISPs are the happy palm-greased hosts of shameless spamfarms like azoogle, directemailfactory, etc and I play hell with those clowns trying to get them to enumerate the boundaries of the netblocks that they lease to these weenies so we can block them if we chose to. WE should determine who enters our networks from the Public network, and for what reasons, it is OUR network. The bigger ISPs do act like, "we're big, so kiss off" AT&T never bothered to even write me back and tell me to go to hell. The smaller more aggresive ISPs are the ones responsible enough to offer rwhois servers so you can determine what portion of their address space is spamming you. The bigger ones snicker, and count the cash. They are part of the problem, I do not expect them to ever be part of the solution. I think they feel their heft alone dictates de facto standards, like Microsoft's attitude. I trace a lot of crap back to uunet and unless I grep many days logs for similarities and guess, it is a dead end. NO rwhois from them, AT&T, Sprint, etc > Every DNS entry has a contact address. > > I think that address should be the primary contact for that domain, and the > method for getting information on who to contact for all other issues. Good theory, I wish it success. > Sure, it adds one more step to contacting many places. BUT, it helps > support the idea that the DNS entry is important, and should be correct. > That part of the RFCs has far too LITTLE enforcement. I see the extra step > as no major loss in comparison to that gain. Amen, so lets be gentle on a group trying to get the world to live within polite 'netizen recommendations. > I do agree with a few parts. > > 1) The WhoIs listed contacts should be reachable, which is what they are > arguing with UUNet over. Amen > 2) DSN ( <> ) mail should be accepted. Accept mail from an empty envelope sender? > > >
