On Fre, 2011-02-25 at 09:37 +0100, Giles Coochey wrote:
> 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,
... because they aren't visible to the rest of the world. And then no
one cares.
> 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.
Consequently on the mail receiving side, I'm also not under obligation
to follow any rules. So I judge these RFC-ignorant (even if they ignore
"only" a proposed RFC which happen to be really used/implemented since
ages) senders as potential spammers.
So what?
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : be...@petrovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
