nanog mailing list archives
Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:26:22 -0400
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote:
"The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs that are widely published and available to all at zero cost. (That wasn't always true, as it wasn't until the DDN Protocol Handbook volumes were published in 1985 that the RFCs were available to everyone. I seem to recall there was an FTP site that provided the RFC documents before that, but my memory is hazy on that.)
IIRC, the CSnet CIC provided an RFC-by-mail service in the mid to late 1980's. It allowed anyone to request any RFC by number, e.g., sending it "rfc123" would result in a response containing that RFC. I also share your recollection of an earlier FTP site but a few minutes of checking old documents hasn't turned up its name and it's fallen out of long-term memory, at least for the moment.
During my career as a web server admin, mail admin, and network admin, I followed "the rules" strictly. As the main abuse contact during my time at a web hosting company, my postmaster@ and abuse@ contact addresses were according to Hoyle, and published with the company ASN, netblock, and domain registration records.
I've done the same -- imperfectly, to be sure, I've certainly tried. Half my grump with Amazon here is that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited money and unlimited personnel. They should be the go-to example for How To Do It Right. They should be the model (or one of the models) that we're all trying to emulate, the gold standard that we can all point to. But they're not. The other half of my grump is that they're enormous, and therefore capable of inflicting enormous damage. The larger an operation, the more critical it is that abuse/security/et.al. be fully supported, highly responsive, empowered to act decisively, etc. But they're not. And I have yet to see anyone from Amazon (a) admit this and (b) ask for help fixing it. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) John Curran (Aug 03)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Stephen Satchell (Aug 04)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Rich Kulawiec (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Henry Yen (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) James R Cutler (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Bruce H McIntosh (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Dan Hollis (Aug 15)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Rich Kulawiec (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) John Curran (Aug 12)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Stephen Satchell (Aug 04)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) John Curran (Aug 04)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Rubens Kuhl (Aug 04)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Scott Christopher (Aug 05)
- Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?) Matthew Petach (Aug 09)