[112884] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Yahoo and their mail filters..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Wed Mar 25 00:02:37 2009
In-Reply-To: <C3F4EA44-F237-4C05-A3D3-5329F550B446@netconsonance.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:30:35 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
> Yes, you've automated your report processing to the point you don't actua=
lly
> have to do any work.
>
> The problem is... you aren't doing the work. =C2=A0You aren't stopping th=
e
> offenders. =C2=A0That's the goal. =C2=A0Automation should be a tool to he=
lp you do the
> job better, not avoid doing the job at all.
And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of spammers,
and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam content etc)
that we can use to update our filters.
There's a whole lot of maawg best practices (some work in progress, on
outbound abuse / webmail abuse) that deal with these issues.
To others in this thread - If your feedback loops are actually very
low volume - you are likely to find a higher percentage of person to
person email. And you may not have a problem at all, in which case you
can simply treat feedback loops as an irritant, or as an early warning
mechanism in case something does go wrong.
If on the other hand your loop traffic is actually high volume
(thousands a day or more) then you probably do have a spam problem,
and ARF is there to provide you near real time notification about such
problems
--=20
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
