Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact

[Michelle Sullivan <matthew () sorbs net>]

Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan <matthew () sorbs net
> <mailto:matthew () sorbs net>> wrote:
>
>     Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>     > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
>       [snip]
>
>     later in the document,  Webmaster@ is not in the required list.
>      As per
>     my previous email, the webservers (all of them) report another email
>
>     [snip]
>
>
> I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting  optional addresses such as
> webmaster@.
> I would  fault SORBS for   automatically listing someone e-mailing
> webmaster@ though,
> as implied above.     Whether the actual RFC existed or not.
>
> It's probably true that all the standard addresses are likely to be
> subject to abuse.   info@  sure is.
>
> However,   they should not be listed without at least analyzing the
> content of the actual message.
> To decide if it is in fact abuse,  OR  if it's just a human failure,  
> somebody attempting to contact
> an admin address/service  that does not exist.
>
> There mere act of attempting to contact multiple standard addresses
> alone, is certainly
> not proof of abuse.

A valid and well put argument.  I don't know what we do with stuff to
webmaster@ however I do know that it is possible that messages to it
will go into the spamtrap system. (the spamtrap system has multiple
entry points, and a mail going in does not guarentee a listing, but it
is likely, especially if the message is repeated to multiple addresses
and therefore is 'bulk'.)

Michelle

-- 
Vulnerabilities are weaknesses associated with an organisations assets that maybe exploited by a threat causing 
unwanted incidents.
http://www.mhix.org/