[SpamCop-List] Re: Earthlink parseing not as good as might be

[Ant]

"Mike Easter" wrote:

> My remark about rfc-i not going into the fine points was based on old
> information;  I hadn't reviewed the available website information
> recently when I sed that.

Ah, right. I must say I was somewhat surprised by the vehemence of
your 'rant'. I've known of rfc-i for a long time, but only recently
looked at their pages in detail.

[snip]
> the annotated and highlighted RFC 2821 sec 4.5.1 is an excellent idea.

That's pretty useful.

[...]
> That type of improvement fixes my #1 gripe about rfc-i not addressing
> the RFCs properly.  The pages don't show a last-modified timestamp, so I
> can't say how long they've been like that.

Bottom of the pages:
... policy-postmaster.php,v 1.12 2004/10/08 ...
... policy-abuse.php,v 1.11 2004/08/22 ...

[snip]
> Of course, the proper [but not RFC related] abuse address for SC.net
> is reg's at abuse.net
> abusenet2 at admin.spamcop.net

Yes, and the rfc-i evidence auto-ack (which doesn't have a date) says
use appeals at . I don't see why SC cannot redirect mail sent to standard
domain contact points to a preferred subdomain mailbox. Perhaps it's
thought that if one has to do some work to find the correct address it
will discourage frivolous complaints.

[snip]
> Then, the 'meaning' of a list has to do with how it is interpreted
> by those who might use it, and how it would be used.

Absolutely. Some people gripe about being on a particular list without
understanding its basis. They need to put their case to the admins
using it to block mail, rather than the list maker, if they think such
use is inappropriate for them.

> Now that rfc-i has a more comprehensive description of what its
> interpretation of compliance really means, I suspect that if Julian or
> some admin would look that over, they could find a way to comply with
> rfc-i's notion of compliance for pm & abuse.

I would be interested to know why the RFCs are not followed, or
thought not to be applicable in this instance.