RFC 2142 does not say that hosts should not or must not communicate with servers not "compliant" with it's suggestions. Furthermore, blocking email which claims to be from a host known to not have an abuse@ address will block little, if any, spam. As proof toward this, I just successfully joined Soya's mailing list by sending a "spoofed" email via telnet mail.gna.org 25. I can, if I so chose, setup a rule in my mutt config on xiph.org to forward mail through a remote proxy to get around your blacklist. Spam is routinely spoofed, for real, through similar means. You're only really blocking legitimate users of mail servers that happen to not have an abuse@ email address. "Enforcing" the recommendations of this RFC on other hosts, in the form of blocking email from them, hurts the projects hosted on GNA.org by detering participation and does little to help anybody. Most ISPs are not going to receive enough complaints to change anything, especially the larger ones. My main concern here is not for me, it's for the larger community. I want to contribute to Soya. I want others to be able to contribute to Soya. There are likely countless other projects being hosted at gna.org which I directly or indirectly depend on growing. Atleast one major email host is blocked by your filters, there are probobally more. This is conflict and yahoo isn't the one being hurt by it, the projects being hosted on gna.org are. IMHO this is a trivial goal to work toward costing time and energy better put into free software development.. a better place to put your energy, if you really want to make an issue out of this, is in the free software mail servers such as Postfix - get them to fail on config file read if the addresses listed in RFC 2142 are removed from the aliases file, or atleast force the user to modify the code or make them set a "ALLOW_BREAK_RFC2142=YES" in the config file. If this policy is to stand, I would like to know how it was made and by whom, and is this an official policy set or approved by FSF France? What is the proper channel to voice concern over it's continued implementation?
Generated by mhonarc, Mon Dec 27 18:20:06 2004