|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Ray Corbin <rcorbin@traffiq.com> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:30:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7984D520-4168-40B6-9B92-1BBA189FEDCA@netconsonance.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org I thought that this was discussed not too long ago... Since these are stand= ardized emails you can easily automate this to generate reports for your em= ployees to look through. This way you can see patterns and take action. For= instance if you get a single complaint against a customer then it likely i= sn't a big deal, but if you start getting multiple complaints about a user = you might want to investigate the account and read further into what the me= ssage included says. Alternatively you could remove yourself from the volun= tary FBL since you don't see the benefit of it. They aren't saying 'this is= spam', they are saying 'this is what was reported to us as spam'. The ma &= pa emails that get flagged aren't going to cause you to be blocked if you = have some mail volume. -r > -----Original Message----- > From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett@netconsonance.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:23 AM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Yahoo and their mail filters.. >=20 > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> > > wrote: > >> The problem is... you aren't doing the work. You aren't stopping the > >> offenders. That's the goal. Automation should be a tool to help > >> you do the > >> job better, not avoid doing the job at all. >=20 > On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > 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. >=20 > That's a great theory. Would you be willing to post an update to this > list if and when your technology and automation actually get to the > point of actually shutting down a spammer? >=20 > > There's a whole lot of maawg best practices (some work in progress, on > > outbound abuse / webmail abuse) that deal with these issues. >=20 > No, see, that's the problem. Best Practices don't deal with abuse > reports. Humans deal with abuse reports. You can collect and sort > and collate your spam reports all day. What about the part where a > human looks at the report, confirms that it is spam, and terminates > the customer? You've got to do that. >=20 > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source > and other randomness >=20 >=20 >=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |