On 31/07/2012 4:59 AM, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>
>
> At 10:42 31/07/2012 (UTC), Tobias Knecht wrote:
>
> >
> > So I'm really interested in hearing more reasons for
> your objection here
> > no matter if you are talking about the "abuse-c:" or the
> > "abuse-mailbox:" attribute.
>
-----8X-------
> 2.
> The e-mail field in the role object (abuse-c requires a
> role object) is mandatory. We actually have customers that
> do not have an email address or haven't provided one
> (probably also dont want to provide one). In these cases,
> I guess the e-mail field will be populated with a bogus
> email address in the form "there.is.no@email.address" and
> perhaps insert remarks: with company URL instead etc.
If the customer refuses to give an abuse e-mail address,
then the onus should fall back on to his ISP to provide a
contact and then pass on the information or take action on
the customers behalf.

It  is not only the _customer_ who impacted by SPAM, but
also the ISP and the ISP in reality is merely delegating
some authority to the customer, so in the end, it ought to
be the ISP who is responsible and should take action, if the
customer can't or refused to.

Arnold

--
Fight Spam - report it with wxSR
http://www.columbinehoney.net/wxSR.shtml