my point is UUNET is not the abuse address for anything occuring on smartbusiness IP space, smart business IS, that is who should and does have the required addresses for contact. smartbusiness is running the email service for smart business, UUNet is not running the email service for smart business. since smartbusiness IS in accordance with RFC, why are they blocked? is it just too hard to do so you punish all of UUnets subdomains. i can understand IF smartbusiness had no contact information but they do, why is RFCI punishing smartbusiness, do you call it collateral damage? heck, i'm not even sure about paypal yet, i have had discussions with others under the same circumstances tho, and they just have no way of correcting the problem of their top-level provider. so they have simply NO way of getting removed from RFCI. how can you justify that? IMO when smartbusiness contacts you and provides everything they need to be RFC compliant they should be removed from any blacklisting, keep UUnet there, just dont punish the subdomains, or even punish them all until the subdomains give you exactly what you ask them to provide, smartbusiness cannot provide an email for abuse@uunet or whatever and should not be held accountable for them. as i understand you are punishing smartbusiness for something they have NO control of whatsoever.
don > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek J. Balling > >Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 2:01 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [IMGate] Re: Recent Thread: "i just noticed" (UUNet/RFCI issue) > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 04:54 PM, Don Weber wrote: > >> hmm, that seems to me to be the point, UUnet is not THE 'EMAIL' > >> service for > >> ALL of its subdomains nor is it the FTP service or http service for > >> them > >> either, therefore should not be held in accordance to that rule, they > >> ARE > >> NOT the ABUSE receiver for smartbusiness leasing, smartbusiness IS, > >> so, in > >> my opinion you just trumped yourself with that one, it can be read a > >> few > >> ways you know. > > > >Methinks you are confusing "addresses required by 2142" and "Addresses > >required as part of whois". > > > >D > > > > > >
