[SpamCop-List] Re: Abuse addresses

[Miss Betsy]

"Anti-Spam" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:ctu9iq$sdb$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>I was about to post something in .routing, but figured
> maybe I'd start with a more generic question:
>
> I just processed a spam where the parser was
> devnulling the results being sent to the originating
> e-mail server.  Seems it had decided to use
> postmaster@, since nothing was registered with
> abuse.net.  My question is, why is postmaster@
> better than the registered whois contact address,
> and in the future, should these cases be flagged
> in .routing?

IIUC, postmaster@ is never supposed to refuse email (possibly there is an 
RFC on this).  The registered whois contact addresses can filter email and 
probably do.  If the postmaster@ box is overwhelmed (or someone is ignoring 
the RFC), then it may bounce.  If spamcop gets enough bounces, it quits 
trying and uses devnull (which does put the IP address on the bl just as if 
reports went).

Miss Betsy