Re: #1093

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russ Allbery wrote:

>> "a mailbox news@<path-identity> SHOULD exist for the most commonly
>>  used <path-identity> of a news server".
 
> I don't think "if you run a Netnews server, you have to be spammable"
> is really going to fly in the real world.

That's the status quo wrt news@ and usenet@ in RFC 2142, or a variation
of this scheme in s-o-1036.  With "my" catchall vanity domain I get tons
of spam (several thousands daily), and role accounts like postmaster@
don't get much of this flood.

Most spam local parts are based on something that I've actually used,
e.g. bugzilla@ or the RHS of Message-IDs, or wild guesses like "joe",
or pieces of Message-IDs.  Apparently spammers stay to some degree 
away from abuse@, but otherwise they don't care.  I could modify my
script to create a statistics for some days if you're interested in
the bloody details wrt news@ + usenet@ + newsmaster@

How admins with role accounts or similar constructs (info@, nobody@)
solve their spam problem is irrelevant for this WG, it affects all
mail users and all domains with an MX alike.

What's relevant is to pick a single default instead of the two or
three today.  No default at all makes no sense - if somebody is
determined to get no mails they publish no MX, or reject mails to 
undesired local parts, or forward it to /dev/nul.

News admins can't read the admin groups of hundreds of TLHs.  They
need a way to contact them in the case of problems requiring manual
intervention.  Some socipathic admins could decide that existing
abuse@ or Tech-C whois-addresses are good enough for this purpose,
but I don't want a standards track document for sociopaths.

If USEPRO-07 stays worse than s-o-1036 it shouldn't be published.

Frank