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

[Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>]

Steven Champeon said the following on 3/24/04 4:16 PM:

> Tanner, you're smarter than that. If I can send you email, you're
> providing an Internet service, by definition.
>
> If you send email, you're using that Internet service. You (Tanner) are
> a "customer" or user of that service, and therefore if you want to be a
> good neighbor on the network we have to share for better or for worse,
> you should be prepared to support the various roles required of everyone
> else providing similar services.

Sure, that's fine.  But then perhaps the RFC should move that address
to a different place and make it more explicit that it is a
"must have" and that by the very act of connecting to the Internet
you have to have this address.  As it stands now, it is obviously
unclear.

> If I get spam from what appears to be your network, I damn well want to
> be able to report it to you. If you don't want that report, I have to
> assume you are rogue and refuse all subsequent mail from your network.
> Sadly, you appear to be arguing that exact thing. 

No, you have completely misunderstood my arguments.  I have said
multiple times that I think it's a "good idea" to have the abuse@
alias.  My contention is that I do not see that is "required" by any
relevant standard, and as a result, perhaps the RFC should be
modified to make it more clear one way or the other so we don't have
one group of people modifying it's use for their own purposes.

> All this sophistic resistance, despite the fact that you have a domain,
> and it has its own MX record in the DNS. So, you should have
> postmaster AT wayfarer.org as an active and monitored mailbox or
> equivalent. If you don't want to support abuse@, that's fine. But you're
> going to find more and more resistance from all corners if you don't,
> especially if someone tries to report a problem originating on your
> network and the abuse@ alias bounces abuse reports. So what's the fuss
> about? Support the alias, do the right thing. Accept the basic
> responsibilities that go along with netizenship.

The fuss is being told I *must* do something.  I have no problem
with having the abuse address, and in fact you can test this by
sending e-mail there. (of course, with your system it would probably
fail since I do have a generic reverse DNS entry, and see no
need to change) I respond very negatively, however, to
threats of coercion, which is what it appears you are trying to do.

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