[anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox

Depends on the provider you work for and what services they provide. Randy is (I think) still with NTT rather than a cloud service, vps operator type shop, so a lot of your questions aren’t going to apply to his environment.


--srs
________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:48:23 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox

In message <m2blcdkzvx.wl-randy at psg.com>,
Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>there is a fair bit of spectrum between the internet of cooperating
>competitors running their networks as prudently as they can afford
>and an internet desired by some where everything is done uniformly
>by rigid written rules.

You are using the word "afford" in this context as a blanket excuse
for incompetence and/or willful anti-social negligence.

What is the cost of adding a "cleanup fee" clause to your standard
service contracts, and why are you so abysmally bad at business that
you cannot afford to do that?

What is the cost of filtering outbound port 25 by default, and why are
you so abysmally bad at business that you cannot afford to do that?

The data is in, and applying one or both of these simple measures to
any given network has been demonstrated to reduce the need to pay
humans to staff an "abuse desk" dramatically.

Are you also unable to "afford" to implement BCP 38?


Regards,
rfg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20210222/5cb46e2c/attachment.html>