On 10/08/01 at 15:45, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:
> >I keep postmaster whiteholed because it's the one account that a mail
server
> >is required to have, so it's the logical address for admins of blacklisted
> >servers to contact me at.
>
> I thought "abuse" was considered the logical one? I have a postmaster
> account as required, but what is the current thinking (or protocol)
> on this?
I can't speak for others, but here's my thinking. Not all mail servers have
'abuse' accounts. Many of them do, but it's not something you can count on,
and I've had mail addressed to abuse accounts at relatively largish ISPs
bounced. Postmaster is the only address that you can really count on to get
through to a server admin, and even that isn't 100%, since not all admins are
conscientious about having 'postmaster' as a required account. At any rate,
even if most people would try 'abuse' first (admittedly, I do), I think there
are probably a lot of people who go straight to 'postmaster'. I've got 'abuse'
routed to the same local account as 'postmaster' anyway, and both are
whiteholed. When it comes to whiteholing one or both of them, I think it boils
down to a judgement call on the part of each individual admin. In my case, I
don't want to exclude legitimate mail from admins of servers I've blacklisted
(not that I get a lot), and for me that outweighs the inconvenience of having
to deal with spam to the postmaster account.
Christopher Bort | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webmaster, Global Homes | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://www.globalhomes.com/> | PGP public key available on request
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
