[conspire] Google's notion of an abuse <at> mailbox

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Any Random Schmo (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):

> Someone really needs to file a new RFC rescinding 2142's requirements
> of usable addresses abuse@, postmaster@, hostmaster@, etc. They are
> about as useful in this day and age as the Finger protocol over TCP.
> You may consider Google's policy to be "a really scummy" one, but I
> doubt you'll find a less scummy one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg
> as the RFC would require.

Really?  On mine, postmaster@ and abuse@ directly to me -- after eliminating
non-RFC-compliant or Joe-Job mails, which my system has no obligation to
accept, and doesn't.

I'm able to comfortably handle that for free, without it eating up
significant time.  What's Google's excuse?  Do they need to hire some
sysadmins, perhaps?