Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:02:51PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote:
I think "abuse" is pretty much the de facto standard, supported by rfc2142,
adopting anything else would take some justifying.
Yes, but abuse @ whatdomain?
The most reliable information is the IP address from which the spam
was injected into my system.
[...]
One possible solution would be to require RP (responsible person) DNS
records in reverse DNS zones of */24 and */16 nets.
Two contact addresses make sense:
* abuse
* netmaster
e.g.
abuse IN RP ip-abuse.some.domain. abuse-txt-record.some.domain.
netmaster IN RP ip-netmaster.some.domain. nm-txt-record.some.domain.
@ IN RP mailbox.some.domain. txt-record.some.domain.
The last record (with name the same as domain name) would be used as
fall back for both abuse and netmaster. It would allow using wildcard RP
records with exceptions for some addresses (or some */24 nets in case of
wildcard */16 RP records).
Implementation path/enforcement:
Some MTAs may refuse to accept messages from nets with no RP records and
bad record in spamcop (or similar).
--
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://anfi.freeshell.org/
anfi(_at_)priv(_dot_)onet(_dot_)pl anfi(_at_)xl(_dot_)wp(_dot_)pl [former:
anfi(_at_)Box43(_dot_)pl]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg