Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>]

Greg Cox said the following on 3/24/04 9:52 AM:

> > Can you please tell us which RFC requires the abuse@ e-mail address
> > to exist?
>
>
> Y'all can spank this around, I don't care, but, here's an annotated RFC:
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/rfcs/rfc2142.php

Thank you very much Greg.  The annotations, however, are somewhat
self-serving are they not?  For instance, the first "abuse" annotation
cuts of the end of the sentence that defines another e-mail address.
The other abuse annotation is in an example of something else completely
and is not necessarily indicitive that "abuse" is an invariant.

I'm not disagreeing that having it is a good idea, I'm just trying
to see why they feel the need to pull that out of all the other e-mail
addresses listed in that RFC.  What makes it better than NOC@ or
SECURITY@ (besides the fact that abuse serves the purposes of the
radical spam fighters).

Cheers,
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace       | Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little
lovelace AT wayfarer.org | yellow bolts of light! - Commander John Crichton