RE: Wiltel has gone pink.

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

This discussion is now drifting back to the one we had several weeks ago
about properly and adequately staffing the abuse desk (email, phone, and
otherwise) in spite of the temptation to take advantage of the
'efficiencies' of scale.  It's beyond me how an abuse@ can afford to drop
emails via their spam filter, unless the required spamminess value is set
*very* high.  Again, auto-responding to spam email can just perpetuate the
spam, though it is effective for those legitimate senders whose email was
marked up as spam.

Anyone want to start a pool to guess when Level3 will update the Wiltel
contact records with the correct Level3 information? =)

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Simon Lyall
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:35 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Wiltel has gone pink.


On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Complete and utter incompetence (ie spam filtering their abuse 
> mailbox)

Considering the amount of spam that abuse mailboxes get then spam filtering
them is actually a good idea. You just have to be a little careful to not
block the complaints.

One way I did was to look for a "Received: " header in the body of the
suspected spam and allow it though if it is rejected. A backup for that was
to have the reject say "Please include the word 'xyzzy' in the subject to
bypass the filters" and allow anything with that through (which happened
less than once per month).

--
Simon J. Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay
awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.