Andrzej Filip:
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
This is an interesting idea - but somewhat orthogonal to a standard for the
*matter* of an abuse report. Which is, I guess, why you forked the thread.
This is the kind of data traditionally held in the whois - standardisation
in this area has been (is) difficult - I hear. Some of the registries and
registrars have "difficulties".
As I understand it, RP gives us someone to contact in response to a host
malfunction - I'm not sure that your proposed usage stretches this a bit?
I'd like to sidestep all this by assuming that the reporter has obtained
(by an unspecified mechanism) a suitable address as the target for the
report. If a reliable and foolproof mechanism can be put in place for the
address discovery - so much the better.
But it's a separate issue.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg