[SpamCop-List] Re: RFC ignorant?

[Marjolein Katsma]

Mike Easter (MikeE at ster.invalid) wrote in news:bvbrjk$2d8$1
@news.spamcop.net:

>> Shouldn't there be a working postmaster addy for control-f1.net ?
> 
> Yes, but....

Submitted my two samples... see reply to Frank.

> I think a stupid-gram reply would depend on who sent it.  If it were
> sent by an enduser, I would ignore it.

I probably would, too - but I haven't encountered such (yet).

> If it were sent by a mailer-daemon with no reply addy available, I
> might be doing a manual notify to the abuse addy or ignoring it. 

I don't want to ignore those - there still is a person _responsible_ for 
the mailer-daemon. (Actually, I got a very nice example of that for a 
mail list that I'm a member of and for which a mail was bounced due my 
SCBL blocking; it told me it's a program, and also told me who its boss 
is. I sent a note back to the boss.) So if the mailer-daemon is sending 
me a stupid-gram I *will* try to contact whoever its boss is.

> If I were interested in starting a project to find out how many pm/s
> don't properly exist/ receive/ and reporting them to rfc-ignorant, I
> guess I would send it to the pm first and the abuse addy and the
> parent, in this case, second. 

Yes .... but I'm not starting a project here. I'm merely interested in 
complaining to whoever is responsible for the stupid-grams telling me 
that *I* have sent them a virus, which I didn't, and telling them that 
their mails are part of the problem, not a solution.

> So, for manual, non-spamcop issues, it is not unusual for me to
> have about 4 notifies in the To: if there isn't a 'good' one that I've
> actually seen 'in print' not 'made-up' by abuse.net.  All of those
> 'people' can see whereall it went and 'sort it out' for themselves. 
> I'm not interested in hearing back from them about where I should have
> sent it the first time, I want to be through with it.

So: gather all possible & likely addresses and then shoot off one nasty-
gram in response to the stupid-gram? Sounds like a good idea.

Now, suppose I get a stupid-gram _from_ postmaster @ stupid.com (hasn't 
happened this time around, but it *has* happened with Klez - would it be 
reasonable to assume that that postmaster addy actually exists, so there 
is no need to gather any more addresses? Or would you add addresses 
anyway?


-- 
Marjolein Katsma - Amsterdam, NL - http://hshelp.com/
Spammers steal resources: they're my enemy.
Cyveillance steals resources: they're my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy can be my enemy, too.