Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan <matt...@sorbs.net > <mailto:matt...@sorbs.net>> wrote: > > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote: > [snip] > > later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list. > As per > my previous email, the webservers (all of them) report another email > > [snip] > > > I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting optional addresses such as > webmaster@. > I would fault SORBS for automatically listing someone e-mailing > webmaster@ though, > as implied above. Whether the actual RFC existed or not. > > It's probably true that all the standard addresses are likely to be > subject to abuse. info@ sure is. > > However, they should not be listed without at least analyzing the > content of the actual message. > To decide if it is in fact abuse, OR if it's just a human failure, > somebody attempting to contact > an admin address/service that does not exist. > > There mere act of attempting to contact multiple standard addresses > alone, is certainly > not proof of abuse.
A valid and well put argument. I don't know what we do with stuff to webmaster@ however I do know that it is possible that messages to it will go into the spamtrap system. (the spamtrap system has multiple entry points, and a mail going in does not guarentee a listing, but it is likely, especially if the message is repeated to multiple addresses and therefore is 'bulk'.) Michelle -- Vulnerabilities are weaknesses associated with an organisations assets that maybe exploited by a threat causing unwanted incidents. http://www.mhix.org/
