On 4/9/00 3:30 PM, Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>At 1:04 PM -0700 4/9/2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>
>>There are one or two bogus-to-me assumptions there, though.
>>
>>Bouncing mail addressed to abuse@ or postmaster@ would constitute
>>non-compliance (and remember, abuse@ is still a *draft* RFC).
>
>Agreed. The other thing is that I'm not surprised that mail to an
>AOL-internal help address bounced, since those people are supposed to
>be helping AOL people. It'd be like e-mailing me at Apple to get tech
>support (it won't work); that the external stuff is broken or
>suboptimal doesn't magically mean the internal addresses should start
>taking external mail.
The hoax response given by AOL was a mistake. It is only meant for AOL
members who are asking about email hoaxes, which is why the mailbox given
only accepts mail from AOL addresses.
This is a brand new change for AOL, and there are a lot of ruffles that
need to be smoothed out. Atkins is being a reactionary by jumping all
over AOL rather than being patient.
>>Autoresponding with the appropriate addresses (as long as they in turn are
>>read) is compliant, though maybe not in the way you might prefer.
>
>Yeah. As someone who's been supportive of AOL here over the years, I
>have to admit I'm not thrilled here, and I tihnk they blew it.
I'm not too happy with AOL's choices either, but I wouldn't be surprised
to see some of these decisions fixed. See the lengthy threads in
news.admin.net-abuse.email for more on this topic.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Finger/Web for PGP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lull.org/adam/
