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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
John Levine
johnl at taugh.com
Thu Feb 18 21:00:35 CET 2021
In article <DB8PR09MB3324537F4168BEA955A0AB07CD859 at DB8PR09MB3324.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> you write: >Abuse reports are a nuisance – anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get their head examined. Of course they are. But abuse from your customers is a nuisance, too, and if you have any sense you will welcome reports about it so you can fix the problem before everyone else blocks you in self-defense. >However a lot of us will deal with abuse reports, but will not put up with people telling us how we should receive them. There are standard ways to send abuse reports, like ARF defined in RFC 5965 and IODEF defined in RFC 7970. Smart people realize that when we send you an abuse report, we are doing it for your benefit, and you will accept them. Report web forms are out of the question because they do not scale. I send about a hundred abuse reports a day about spam received from all over the Internet, and I have no interest in using your form or anyone else's to make a manual special case for under 1% of my reports. R's, John
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]