On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:58:19PM -0400, Patrice Fournier wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Byng-Maddick <exim@???>:
> > I'm getting the steady feeling that rfc-ignorant.org are themselves
> > RFC ignorant, but certainly a lot of the people that appear to
> > subscribe to them lack the appropriate clue level.
> Can you elaborate on this (rfc-ignorant.org being RFC ignorant, not the
> cluelessness of their subscribers)?
Their whois.rfc-ignorant.org domain would block out the entire uk. domain,
and any subdomains of it. There is no RFC that says that you must have
contact information available in whois, it's contractual with the NIC.
With the DSN thing, I believe there are sites which track what mails have
been sent out, and if an envelope sender hasn't sent a mail recently, it
won't be a valid recipient for even a <>. In the face of mail system abuse,
it is clear that this is a very grey area. Remember that the tester is not
able to test DSNs. The other thing is that I run a system which has bait
addresses and is designed as anti-spam. If you manage to trigger its
defences, it will refuse <> addresses as well as everything else, and will
only receive mail for postmaster and a few admin addresses from you.
There is no requirement to supply an "abuse" address for every domain, which
I believe they also ask for, especially for small mail domains, maintaining
random (non-mandated) addresses seems a bit broken.
(I personally let my users edit their own aliases files, so I can't guarantee
abuse contacts, nor can I guarantee that they will be correct)
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
