abuse@ and postmaster@ in the modern world?

[Luis Motta Campos]

Paul Makepeace wrote:
> So I don't think I've ever got useful mail through postmaster@ and
> only occasionally has abuse@ yielded anything, in the eight odd years
> I've run mail for domains. RFC-ignorant reminds us they're both
> required addresses, http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-abuse.php Those
> RFCs were written in a time before significant spam however. Turning
> off these addresses at SMTP time would be a solid win in cutting CPU &
> network usage.
> 
> What's the prevailing attitude these days? I'm particularly curious to
> hear from people who are serving old/many domains were spam is more
> than just irritating, it's a resource issue.

  I still using both, and SpamAssassin in everything that looks like a
mailbox.

  And I disagree: I have a much larger history of good use of abuse@ and
also postmaster@ in the domains I manage.

-- 
Luis Motta Campos
Senior System Engineer at Segula.FR
Hobbyist Cooker and Photograph