On 24 Feb 2011, at 20:01, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Hello Mahmoud Khonji, > > Am 2011-02-23 23:03:46, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: >> A sending mail server should accept ab...@example.com, and number of > > This is wrong because, only public ISP offering MAILSERVICES must have > an <abuse> addresses. The only one required, is the <postmaster> which > is clearly writte in the RFCs.
That's at best debatable. The mail services certainly don't have to be completely public; an organisation should accept abuse reports relating to e.g. mail sent by employees. In fact, you can argue that if *anyone* other than the person who would read abuse@ is using the service, it applies. > >> However, since many legit senders ignore this, it turns out that FP >> rate is too high for now. > > Oh I should not, that my <newsletter> server had tonns of faulty DSNs... > do to spammmers using forged From: > Yes. Isn't it annoying. How, then, is that an argument in support of generating them on other peoples mail servers in response to your newsletter?
