Re: Points for missing MX Records

[Giles Coochey]

On 24/02/2011 21:30, Dominic Benson wrote:

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.

If a mail service is private then they can do what the hell they like, it might not be fully SMTP compliant, but then again, if it is a private mail service they are under no obligation to follow any rules.

--
Best Regards,

Giles Coochey
NetSecSpec Ltd
NL T-Systems Mobile: +31 681 265 086
NL Mobile: +31 626 508 131
GIB Mobile: +350 5401 6693
Email/MSN/Live Messenger: gi...@coochey.net
Skype: gilescoochey

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature