>Well, there are ways and there are ways. An e-mail that allows a single
>reply to confirm an abuse report (avoiding spurious reports/spams) could
>be sent to the original reporter. Have a single change needed, varied
>with an arbitrary value to avoid mechanical responses, could accomplish
>the same thing with less time/effort on the part of the original
>reporter.
Or, a web form. What is the difference?
>What we see implemented is really more of an "offload effort from us to
>them" solution. That is not contained in the intent of the RFC. So, the
>real rant comes not against the RFC intent, but against the
>implementation which forces more workload onto a well-intentioned
>reporter of abuse.
So, your complaint is with who is doing it, not how they are doing it? Workload? Cut and paste the original mail into the web form. And, in the future, you can bypass the initial e-mail.
> Why you feel like you are too good to communicate them in an
> effective manner is your own issue, not theirs or the RFC.
>One hell of an assumption on your part there.
There is no assumption. You are the one who was ranting about not being able to communicate with them on your terms. The RFC does not specify that all communication must be by SMTP, only that they must reply to the abuse address. You just don't like it for whatever reason.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
