[RFCI-Discuss] abuse: fr.colt.net

[Derek J. Balling]

On Dec 11, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Abuse Desk wrote:
> This action appears to be contrary to RFCI's longstanding  
> practice.  How is a recipient that deletes email unread  
> "appropriate for the referenced service or role"?  We consider any  
> "Not read" "disposition-notification" for any message sent to any  
> abuse@ address at any domain registered in any registry to be  
> "evidence of the messages being bitbucketed" within the meaning of  
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-abuse.php with the current  
> bottom line "$Id: policy-abuse.php,v 1.11 2004/08/22 13:06:48 dredd  
> Exp $".

Because a message which goes to "/dev/null" never gets *delivered* to  
an appropriate recipient.

A disposition-notification, generated by an MUA, indicates that the  
message *WAS* delivered to a recipient. That they chose to simply  
delete it on their own is a decision the recipient makes.

The difference is that in the former case, there is no recipient  
actively involved in the decision-making process.

Cheers,
D


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2419 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20061211/1b1b2ab0/smime.bin