RE: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

["TAYON, Julien" <]

Title: RE: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

Niall O'Reilly <mailto:Niall.oReilly@localhost> wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2004, at 12:10, Anthony Edwards wrote:
>
>> In fact, you are not advertising any abuse related contact address in
>> arguably the most widely used database of abuse related contact
>> addresses, since:
>>
>> anthony@localhost:~> whois -h whois.abuse.net ucd.ie
>> postmaster@localhost (default, no info)
>
> There's are simple reasons for that.
>
> First, domain names are not reliable for tracking spam.
> The IP address is a more effective trail to follow.
> Consequently, I am not convinced of the usefulness of posting
> contact information as you suggest for our domain.
>
...
> I'm open to being convinced. A best-practice document endorsed
> by the RIPE Anti-Spam working group would have significant weight
> in convincing me.
I am quite new so forgive a potential out off topic email but I was wondering would it look like that ?

http://www.ripe.net/docs/spam.html#toc2

It seemed quite clear to me that domain MUST have an abuse email and whois DB MUST be consistent (must has in regular RFC) and RIPE object consider email for person object  as MANDATORY (DB ref manual), did I miss something ?

But maybe you are right filling email in  domain name contact is a loss of time (and therefore money). However last time I talked with an anti-spam stake-holder they consider non consistent DB informations as a strong hint for a UBE activity whoever you are. Therefore, even if is not wrong per se, it can result in a faster black-listing. Nowadays RBL seems to be used for 30% of the global mail traffic, and being BLed hurts. As a result you might loose even more time talking with people that blacklisted you.

So if you want to take the risk, do it. It is your choice.

Regards,

Julien Tayon    LDCOM networks
BU DATA- +33 1 70 18  14 45
1 square Chaptal , 92309 Levallois Cedex