nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse.cc ???
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:31:39 -0500
In message <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E630 () msmdcfs01 msmgmt com>, "McBu rnett, Jim" writes:
I just made a number of abuse complaints to a provider and then after = contacting the abuse #.=20 I got told that they don't use abuse@ anymore. that abuse.cc is the new = email address. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this against RFC current practice?
Yes -- see RFC 2142. But the IETF has no enforcement arm... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
Current thread:
- Abuse.cc ??? McBurnett, Jim (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Johannes Ullrich (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Steven M. Bellovin (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Frank Louwers (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Gerald (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Simon Lyall (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Owen DeLong (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 03)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Owen DeLong (Apr 04)
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Gerald (Apr 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Abuse.cc ??? Dan Hollis (Apr 03)
- RE: Abuse.cc ??? McBurnett, Jim (Apr 04)