David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:17:28 +0100
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> ...and we still don't have better standardized and documented way to
>> report abuse, do we?
>
> postmaster@ *has* to be there for sure, so if abuse@ is not, send
> your reports to postmas
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:17:28 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
[...]
> ...and we still don't have better standardized and documented way to
> report abuse, do we?
postmaster@ *has* to be there for sure, so if abuse@ is not, send
your reports to postmaster@
I understand what rfc-ignorant.org
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:55:12 +0100
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > Incorrect. You must have abuse@addresses iat your domain registration
> > boundary, if you can receive e-mail.
>
> > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-abuse.php
On 25.02.11 16:04, David F. Skoll wrote:
> That quotes RFC 21
I remember a while back, problems with responsiveness from the DOB
list. it was pretty slow for a while there.
Anyone know if it is being keep up to date with all the *.co.cc spammers
and such?
what about performance?
We had disabled it about a year ago, and never re-enabled it.
--
Michae
On 2/25/11 4:04 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
That quotes RFC 2142, which is only a proposed standard. rfc-ignorant.org
is pretty well known for being... how to put this delicately... aggressive.
'back in the day', if an isp/email provider or luser did not have a
postmaster and abuse account, it
David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:55:12 +0100
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> Incorrect. You must have abuse@addresses iat your domain registration
>> boundary, if you can receive e-mail.
>
>> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-abuse.php
>
> That quotes RFC 2142, which is onl
