"Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote:
> Bouncing mail addressed to abuse@ or postmaster@ would constitute
> non-compliance (and remember, abuse@ is still a *draft* RFC).
>
> Autoresponding with the appropriate addresses (as long as they in turn are
> read) is compliant, though maybe not in the way you might prefer.
The specific problem I had a week or so ago was that the autoresponder
responded with, not an email address, but a pointer to a FAQ, and the
FAQ (which had obviously not been updated) told people to send mail to
the postmaster/abuse address. Endless loop. That is certainly noncompliant.
The FAQ also made reference to telephoning the NOC in certain
circumstances, and that would constitute compliance, to my thinking.
Therefore, my assumption is that AOL wants outside postmasters to
telephone the NOC to inform them of external email problems, since it
has provided that contact, while failing to provide any others. So I
would urge everyone to use that route as well, and explain the reasoning
on each phone call.
If this happens I wonder how long it will take for them to reinstitute a
working mail address.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
