On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Mike Lewinski wrote: > http://multiversity.net/rfc-ignorant-opinions.html
Let me say a couple things on the conversation there. :) <carol> Remember that if your postmaster address has _any_ spam-filtering on it at all, you're eligible for listing. If you don't have a human being readin every klez sent to postmaster@ - you're eligible for listing. You can have spam-filtering on postmaster, you just have to have the be something clear as to WHY you were rejected. There was a long discussion on the RFCI mailing list about "filtering mail to postmaster" because the RFC says, explicitly, that you cannot do it, no way, no how, *except* in a minimal fashion during an active attack. There was a long discussion centering around the principle that "spam" is an active attack, but to different between folks who just don't allow ANYONE to mail to postmaster@, and sites who are doing filtering, that if you're contacting mail to postmaster, and can't get through, you deserve to know WHY you can't get through, so saying something like "Mail from [x.x.x.x] rejected - Listed in MAPS RBL" or whatever would not be a "listable" criteria. <alice> and even derek said that if abuse@$munged_rbl was directed to /dev/null that the listing would be removed. That's not entirely what I said, what I'd said was that if he had set it to /dev/null in the first place, it would never have gotten listed... Our "removal" policy involves sending a removal URL to the address in question, and the recipient removes the network/domain. This is why UUNet is having so much trouble at the moment. In other words, we saw this as a flaw in our removal process and fixed it. :) <carol> rfc-ignorant.org didn't have any abuse address for the longest time. No, that's not true at all to my recollection. I'd like to see the bounce that claims such. I know we had a brief period where "MAIL TO: <postmaster>" would bounce because I'd put entries in each virtual domain, but forgotten to create a standalone entry in aliases, but it was resolved within an hour or two of someone mentioning it to me. <alice> But derek only enforces *some* RFCs and is incredibly selective about which ones. There are, at present, something like 3000 RFC's. It is beyond the scope of one person to enforce them all. I've always claimed the RFCI project was "Scratching an itch", and that if someone wanted to enforce some other RFC that was annoying them, I'd happily delegate a dnsbl subdomain to their NS and let them manage it as they saw fit. <carol> And follow the RFCs to the *letter* and still be listed. I'd like to know which RFC could be followed to the letter and still result in listing, as I saw this claim, but nothing was stated to back it up. <alice> He is very defensive about it. <alice> So much so, that no rational discussion can be had about it it. I'd like to think the discussion we're having here is rational about it. I suspect I know who Alice is, though, and the forum she and I have discussed it in, where I have just gotten sick of having people complain about it every other week. ;) <carol> Of course, there are no valid @$munged_website addresses, so postmaster isn't required. A common fallacy. If $munged_website, as a host, sends mail, then postmaster@$munged_website needs to work. So if "foo.bar.com" is the outbound MTA for "bar.com", then [EMAIL PROTECTED] needs to work. Cheers, D PS - *this* is very very funny. <me> one of my NOC monkeys recently realized that his real job descript is: <me> "stand at the edge of the cliff and try to stop the lemmings"
