At 01:47 AM 10/3/2008, you wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyd <cboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Vandaman wrote:
>
>> 1. Go to the eircom page or type abuse at eircom in google to get the web
>> form. The form looks like it goes direct to their tech support, they
>> responded very fast.
>
> Yes, but the trend is for the big ISPs to use ARF, which sort of
defeats the
> idea of humans filling out forms.
This is getting WAY off topic, but:
ARF is really meant to be a format for ISPs to report abuse to one
another. For example, when an AOLer clicks the "Report Spam" button,
AOL pastes up an ARF format message and sends it to the entity who
controls the IP address from which AOL received the original message.
This only works if that entity has registered an email address with
AOL's "feedback loop" service.
ARF is not intended for use by end users making spam complaints to
abuse desks.
This is why the RFC clearly states that you must answer certain email
addresses; abuse@ being one! If you don't follow the RFC's than how
can anyone expect your protocols or operations to be compliant with
any standards?
Now, someone decided, in their infinite wisdom, that if you send an
auto-reply directing you to a web form, that this is compliant..
where as I read it as a cheat! That does not allow me to use the
abuse@ address for the function it was intended and as stated earlier:
I DO NOT HAVE TIME IN A DAY TO GO REPORTING SOME ADMINISTRATOR'S
DEFICIENCY IN POLICING HIS/HER OWN USERS THROUGH A PROPRIETARY WEB FORM.
Therefore, I have been given authority to block them, meeting my
management's criteria.
Make sure your rules meet the RFCs and your management's criteria and
you will make your life a whole lot simpler.. Oh, and argue the RFC's
with management, in case they do not understand!
Cheers!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
