[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports

On 25/07/2012 6:52 AM, Frank Gadegast wrote:
> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>> If they send reports to $random addresses they don't 
>> really deserve a response
>
> Thats a true word for prefessionals, but not for 
> not-so-skilled
> reporter, that are happy to find out, that there is 
> something like RIPE
> and a whois showing them who is responsible for a 
> resource, if they
> get abused.
I have to agree with this.
As a purely 'amateur' reporter, The WhoIs record is all I 
can rely on
as an _officially_ published record to report my complaint.
There are other ways, but none are as easy to use and as 
official.

If the people responsible for reducing SPAM won't do 
anything to make
it easier by at least enforcing a proper abuse address in 
the expected
and designated place, then it makes the job of reporting and 
reducing
SPAM that  much harder.

No matter what you will do, publishing  any address opens 
the door to
receiving SPAM, but ... why complain about it; use the 
information
provided by this SPAM in the same way you expect any other user
to use it - except you won't need me to report it to you :-)

Arnold

-- 
Fight Spam - report it with wxSR
http://www.columbinehoney.net/wxSR.shtml