Re: Responsiveness of remote admins

["Craig H. Rowland" <crowland () psionic com>]

> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Randy Grimshaw wrote:
>
> > I have written to abuse () rr com and included the *full* logs. What I got
> > back was an automated response that effectively says thank-you, now go
> > away... which may be all that I can expect. We (at Syracuse) DO follow
> > through and "smack" people but I can't say that we always respond to the
> > original complaint with any follow through.

[snip]

> emails the point of contact for the remote system.  The trend I have noticed
> is the larger the organization, the less likely you are to hear from them.

This is my observation too. Most of the time I don't bother reporting
scans from dialup users or cable modems unless they are being real jerks
and don't go away. With higher profile servers doing the scans (www,
nameservers, etc.) I'll always send a personal note to the admins because
they are obviously critical to the site and shouldn't have an intruder on
them. I have, on occasion, received notes back saying basically "so
what?" Which pretty much says who was doing the scanning. 

There are some sites that are totally unresponsive though (.edu
especially) and for these special cases I have a permanent home for them
in my filter list (which my co-worker calls "The Penalty Box"). 

-- Craig