|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:16 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <E4071B6D-C480-4CD8-91B3-47BBC2D85B9D@netconsonance.com> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Sheesh. I thought I was replying to another mailing list, until I cleaned up the recipient list. Jo Rhett wrote: > NOTE: for a small mail sending provider who controls every mail server > and customer in their netblock, it probably is useful. It's just > useless for colocation providers and generic ISPs. > It works fine for large ISPs and colocation providers; especially those who run abacus to process large volumes of reports and keep their time well spent. If you spend 2 hours on a feedback loop without any actions having to be taken, you're definitely doing something wrong. > And let's be honest. AOL's effort shouldn't be applauded. It's an > autobot which sends false spam reports, nothing more and nothing less. > Any autobot which sends false spam reports needs to be shut down. > It's not a false spam report? The recipient obviously didn't think they wanted the email. For mailing lists/broadcasters, this means it's an opt out request. For one to one mail, it's only an issue when it's repetitive, in which case, the sender probably needs to be informed that the recipient address they are using might not be correct (or the person doesn't like their style of email). Jack P.S. This really isn't operational and I should probably be shot for even replying to the thread, so feel free to reply to me off-list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |