nanog mailing list archives
Re: Automatic abuse reports
From: Hal Murray <hmurray () megapathdsl net>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:57:17 -0800
William Herrin <bill () herrin us> said:
That's the main problem: you can generate the report but if it's about some doofus in Dubai what are the odds of it doing any good?
It's much worse than that. Several 500 pound gorillas expect you to jump through various hoops to report abuse. Have you tried reporting a drop box to Yahoo or Google lately? On top of that, many outfits big enough to own a CIDR block are outsourcing their mail to Google. Google has a good spam filter. It's good enough to reject spam reports to abuse@<hosted-by-google> I wonder what would happen if RIRs required working abuse mailboxes. There are two levels of "working". The first is doesn't bounce or get rejected with a sensible reason. The second is actually gets acted upon. If you were magically appointed big-shot in charge of everything, how long would you let an ISP host a spammer's web site or DNS server or ...? What about retail ISPs with zillions of zombied systems? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
Current thread:
- Re: Automatic abuse reports, (continued)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Daniƫl W . Crompton (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports William Herrin (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports William Herrin (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Brandon Galbraith (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports joel jaeggli (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 12)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 13)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Paul Bennett (Nov 13)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 13)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Jimmy Hess (Nov 13)
- Re: Automatic abuse reports Sam Moats (Nov 13)