[RFCI-Discuss] plus.net postmaster listing rejected?

[Derek J. Balling]

On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Abuse Desk wrote:

> "Derek J. Balling" <dredd at megacity.org> wrote:
>> So, the mail to postmaster was blocked because "it looks like
>> phishing spam", a narrow criteria that is considered acceptable under
>> the listing policy. Thus, that was a valid rejection, and the
>> submission was dismissed.
>>
>> The mail to abuse, though, says "We're rejecting your message to
>> abuse because it looks like it contains spam," which is an absurd
>> argument to make because the abuse@ address is designed for reporting
>> of spam [and other abuses]. Rejecting a mail to abuse "because it
>> looks like it has spam in it" defeats the purpose of the abuse@
>> address, and is considered a listable offense under the published
>> listing policies.
>
> We feel that rejecting a mail to postmaster "because it looks like  
> it has spam in it" defeats the purpose of the postmaster@ address,  
> especially if the mail to postmaster is about something the  
> postmaster is directly responsible for, such as an autoresponder  
> that reflects spam, and we respectfully request that postmaster  
> submissions of domains that do such rejecting be accepted.

Respectfully declined.... We had a long discussion about this very  
topic way back at the beginning of the RFCI project, and people  
protecting the postmaster address - so long as the reason for  
rejection is explicit and clear - is a concession we have made to the  
realities of the present day.

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/20061105/24a6523a/smime.bin