[103827] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Tue Apr 15 07:14:07 2008
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:12:33 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a0804150001y25f47c27o4b2c7a87291132e@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > It should be simple -- not require a freeking full-blown "standard".
>
> Its a standard. And it allows automated parsing of these complaints.
> And automation increases processing speeds by orders of magnitude..
> you dont have to wait for an abuse desker to get to your email and
> pick it out of a queue with hundreds of other report emails, and
> several thousand pieces of spam [funny how abuse@domain type addresses
> end up in so many spammer lists..]
It cannot be understated that even packet pushers and code grinders
who care get stranded in companies where abuse handling is deemed
by management to be a cost center that only saps resources. Paul,
you are doing a serious disservice to those folks in specific, and
working around such suit-induced damage in general, by dismissing
any steps involving automation.
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
