unwise filtering policy from cox.net

Given what Sean wrote goes to the core of how mail is routed, you'd
pretty much need to overhaul how MX records work to get around this one,
or perhaps go back to try to resurrect something like a DNS MB record,
but that presumes that the problem can't easily be solved in other
ways. Sean demonstrated one such way (move the high volume stuff to its
own domain).

Moving "abuse@" to its own domain may work, however, fixing this problem at
the DNS level is probably an error, and probably non-RFC-compliant anyways.

The real problem here is probably one of:

1) Mail server admin "forgot" (FSVO "forgot", which might be "didn't even
   stop to consider," "considered it and decided that it was worthwhile to
   filter spam sent to abuse@, not realizing the implications for abuse
   reporting," "didn't have sufficient knowledge to figure out how to
   exempt abuse@," etc.)

2) Server software doesn't allow exempting a single address; this is a
   common problem with certain software, and the software should be fixed,
   since the RFC's essentially require this to work. Sadly, it is
   frequently assumed that if you cannot configure your system to do X,
   then it's all right to not do X, regardless of what the RFC's say.

The need to be able to accept unfiltered recipients has certain
implications for mail operations, such as that it could be "bad" to use IP
level filtering to implement a "shared" block for bad senders.

... JG

To be clear, should one be white listing *all* the addresses suggested in
RFC 2142?