Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators)

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> > I can understand the reasoning behind what they are doing, but perhaps
> > they are taking things in the wrong direction.  Our abuse@ email address
> > is just that, abused.  Our abuse@ mailbox gets probably 500+ spams a day
> > with maybe 2-3 legit emails that we need to look at.  Sure we could run
>
> I'm not sure people actually understand the scope of what some ISPs have
> to deal with.  Scaling to handle 6.8 million abuse complaints a day is
> hard.  Despite calling them "lazy network operators" some of them work
> very hard in a thankless job.
>
> According to the Washington Post
>
>    America Online says it has seen a dramatic decline in spam over the
>    past month, due to improved filtering techniques and fear of
>    litigation under a new U.S. law. In a one-month period ending March
>    20, customer complaints about spam nearly halved to 6.8 million per
>    day, the Time Warner Inc. unit said.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3300-2004Apr11.html

Presumably the 6.8m figure is how many users click the 'spam' button in the AOL 
mail client and not how many abuse complaints are sent in?

I'd assume the former would be mostly automated and the latter ought to be 
looked at some how as it will include compromised host reports, spam sending etc

Steve