This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Mar 18 02:02:24 CET 2015
In message <20150317111746.GA5971 at spin.it>, furio ercolessi <furio+as at spin.it> wrote: >... The flows from the feedback loop places have a >lower quality of individual reports (high fraction of "mail that i do >not want" that is not really spam) but their strength is the volume, >they have a fixed format and so processing of those reports should be >easy to automate - they do not need to enter the queue of mails inspected >manually. I believe that there are products for abuse desks on the market >that do these splittings already. I would just add that the separation Furio just described should be quite trivial for pretty much anyone with even minimal experience with, for example, Procmail, or even bash or awk or grep to automate locally, e.g. based on the e-mail source information (e.g. envelope sender address). There's no real need to go outside and purchase a "separator" tool. However _parsing_ the various formats of feedback loop e-mails is a different matter. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]