Re: [cobalt-users] ABUSE email refused

[Dom Latter <qube@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff Lasman wrote:
> 
> At 09:52 AM 2/1/00  Chris Adams wrote:
> 
> >Hmm, which RFC is it that requires abuse?  The only requirement I'm
> >aware of is postmaster, and MANY sites out there break that and nobody
> >blocks them because of it.  AFAIK abuse is only a common practice kind
> >of thing (only in the last couple of years).
> 
> Having been notified both onlist and offlist that there's no such RFC, I
> decided to go ahead and defend myself onlist <smile>:
> 
> Check out RFC2142.

I have, thankyou, and added those few aliases that I hadn't yet got covered.

However the pedant in me wishes to point out that this RFC doesn't appear
to contain "MUST"s and "SHOULD"s but contains phrases like "organizations 
which support email exchanges with the Internet are encouraged to support AT 
LEAST each mailbox name for which the associated function exists within the 
organization."

Confusingly it also says:
"However, if a given service is offerred, then the associated mailbox name(es) 
must be supported".

Does "Category: Standards Track" mean that it's an RFC on its way to becoming
a standard?

Anyway, at the end of the day, you should provide abuse@ and if you don't,
expect grief from your fellow admins.