On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 09/Feb/10 17:45, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
There's a whole theory of other ARF messages that may arrive at a domain's
abuse@ mailbox. A domain's user, or someone writing to a forwarded address
of that domain, writes a message that is reported as spam, either correctly
or by mistake. As part of an FBL or other trust-chain, the message comes
back wrapped in an ARF report at the apparently originating domain.
The mailbox is abuse(_at_)domain in both cases. Although it may seem
desirable to have different addresses for incoming and outgoing reports, I
doubt such distinction will ever be effective. Indeed, the forwarded case
is ambiguous.
If you think that any part of this chain is involving mail sent to abuse@
anywhere your model of it is a long way from how I understand the situation.
The abuse-mailbox is an attribute in some whois db (e.g. RIPE). The form
abuse(_at_)domain is standardized by rfc 2142. Some people (e.g. Abusix) may
plan to send machine generated complaints at such addresses.
None of that has anything to do with TiS buttons, though, which this thread is
about. (Nor is it anything to do with feedback loops, which this thread is
tangentially about).
Besides that, I don't feel my model is much different than yours.
It is quite different (and I think wrong :)) which is why I'm stressing it.
We're not talking about abuse complaints in this thread, nor anything that
would be sent to an existing role account.
That doesn't mean that a particular user might decide that sending either TiS
notifications or FBL reports to a role address like sales@, postmaster@ or
abuse@ is a good idea, but it's certainly not a requirement or even an expected
behaviour[1].
Rather there's one part of the chain that involves an end users MUA
reporting a TiS button hit to their mail provider in a machine readable
manner. That may well be done via SMTP, but if so it'll be to a dedicated
email address (or set of email addresses) used solely for that function.
I agree that's a possibility. I've proposed abuse(_at_)authserv-id, which may
or may not be simpler. I don't think it makes a big difference.
The other part of the chain involves feedback loops, which are sent in
response to the TiS hit. Pretty much all current ones are sent via SMTP, but
not typically to an abuse@ address (it's certainly not best practice to do
it that way). Again, they're intended for entirely automated handling and so
are machine readable.
Yes, but I've used abuse(_at_)tana(_dot_)it for the FBL(s) I've subscribed
to. Perhaps if I had a ponderous ARF traffic I'd be better off using a
different address. However, that would be more of a nuisance if then I'd have
to redirect there other ARF messages that somehow reach the abuse mailbox
instead of my dedicated address.
Both parts of the service involve solicited, machine readable messages sent
under a contractual agreement. That's very different from an abuse@ alias,
which is dominated by unsolicited messages that are not intended to be
machine readable.
Again, splitting the traffic may be convenient for heavy loads. However, I
just whitelisted my abuse@ address from spam filtering. The moment I'll get a
lot of ARF reports, it will be easy to add a recipient-filter that processes
incoming messages only if they are in ARF format and leaves them in the
current folder otherwise.
Yup, and that all works mostly OK (though you'll find some problems if you go
the recipient-filter route). It's not the way I'd advise anyone to set things
up as it won't scale well, but is quite workable for a small domain.
Cheers,
Steve
[1] Sending FBL reports to sales@ does have a certain charm, though.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg