On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote: [snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list. As per
my previous email, the webservers (all of them) report another email
[snip]
I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting optional addresses such as webmaster@. I would fault SORBS for automatically listing someone e-mailing webmaster@ though, as implied above. Whether the actual RFC existed or not. It's probably true that all the standard addresses are likely to be subject to abuse. info@ sure is. However, they should not be listed without at least analyzing the content of the actual message. To decide if it is in fact abuse, OR if it's just a human failure, somebody attempting to contact an admin address/service that does not exist. There mere act of attempting to contact multiple standard addresses alone, is certainly not proof of abuse. -- -JH