[103882] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Apr 16 14:11:14 2008
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:50:28 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <C42B97EA.16421E%dave.nanog@alfordmedia.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Dave Pooser wrote:
>> Handling the abuse desk well (or poorly) builds (or damages) the brand.
>
> ...among people who are educated among such things. Unfortunately, people
> with clue are orders of magnitude short of a majority, and the rest of the
> world (ie: potential customers) wouldn't know an abuse desk from a
> self-abuse desk.
I think that depends on the nature of the abuse desk, how it interfaces with
other networks and the customer base. Of course, I get to be the NOC guy and the
abuse guy here. It's nice to have less than a million customers. However, I find
that how NOC issues and abuse issues are handled are very similar. It is, of
course, easier to reach another NOC than it is the senior abuse staff that
actually have clue, generally. Both departments need a certain amount of front
line protection to keep them from being swamped with issues that can be handled
by others. Never the less, when they can interface with customers and with the
other departments that spend more time with customers, it does improve the
company's service level.
If there is a routing, firewalling, or email delivery issue with a much larger
network, the effectiveness of the NOC/Abuse Dept will determine how well the
customers will handle the interruption. If the company has built trust with the
customer and related to them in a personal way, then the customer will in turn
tend to be more understanding of the issues involved, or in some cases at least
point their anger at the right company.
-Jack
Learning to mitigate the damage caused by Murphy's law.
