On Tue 24/Jul/2012 20:39:44 +0200 Reza Farzan wrote:
> To complement what Alessandro said, it is good that RFC 6650 splits
> abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones, even
> though it may confuse common users.
> The "solicited" should be reserved for Spam Cop, and other
> administrators who are trying to report Abuse/Spam activities to a
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. "Solicited", at least in the sense of
RFC 6650, refers to private agreements, e.g. like the one you apply
for at http://postmaster.aol.com/SupportRequest.FBL.php . The FBL
email address involved in the agreement can be dedicated.
Perhaps RFC 6650 could have chosen a better term, but the definition
it gives is clear enough:
The original, and still by far the most common, application of
[RFC5965] is when two mail systems make a private agreement to
exchange abuse reports -- usually reports due to recipients manually
reporting messages as spam. We refer to these as solicited reports.
Hm... yes. Although explicitly asking for reports looks very much
like soliciting them, that form is more similar to an abuse-mailbox
published in its own peculiar way, than to an FBL.
> This way, the "solicited" channel (abuse@doma...) would
> remain free of unsolicited inquiries, and network administrators
> could mange it more efficiently and process legitimate reports
Using an FBL address different from abuse@doma... is a good
way to keep it free from other stuff.