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

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:10:55PM -0500, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> Steven Champeon said the following on 3/24/04 12:46 PM:
> 
> 
> >The first abuse annotation outlines the rationale in terms of de facto
> >standards. The second says that for domain X, abuse@X must work. I guess
> >I don't see your objection.
> 
> Steve, my objection is that it looks to me like things are taken out
> of context. 

It's called annotation.

> Nowhere do I see something that says (and only says)
> "Here is a list of reserved addresses that must work" and it includes
> abuse.

The RFC says:

   "The purpose of this memo is to aggregate and specify the basic set
    of mailbox names which organizations need to support. Most
    organizations do not need to support the full set of mailbox names
    defined here, since not every organization will implement the all of
    the associated services. However, if a given service is offerred,
    then the associated mailbox name(es) must be supported, resulting in
    delivery to a recipient appropriate for the referenced service or
    role."

It then says:

   "4.  NETWORK OPERATIONS MAILBOX NAMES

   Operations addresses are intended to provide recourse for customers,
   providers and others who are experiencing difficulties with the
   organization's Internet service.

   MAILBOX        AREA                USAGE
   -----------    ----------------    ---------------------------
   ABUSE          Customer Relations  Inappropriate public behaviour
   NOC            Network Operations  Network infrastructure
   SECURITY       Network Security    Security bulletins or queries"

Maybe I'll suggest to Derek that he highlight those sections as well.

Steve

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e" today!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-20/ref=nosim/