[133275] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Abuse@ contacts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Tue Dec 7 23:34:21 2010
In-Reply-To: <C924F653.12B87%s.ewing@aussiehq.com.au>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:03:31 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Shaun Ewing <s.ewing@aussiehq.com.au>
Cc: Gavin Pearce <Gavin.Pearce@3seven9.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Shaun Ewing <s.ewing@aussiehq.com.au> wrote=
:
> As mentioned previously, a lot of the traffic in abuse queues is automate=
d
> and you might have anywhere up to 100 emails for a single incident. In
> these cases, we merge the messages into one ticket, handle the case and
> close it off.
Speaking as someone who's been running abuse desks since the mid 90s
[still late to the party compared to other posters in this thread like
say, Joe Greco, but what the heck, hi joe, hope you agree]
Add to it the fact that you get far less "actual email" coming into
abuse desks these days.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Far more email that's scripted / at lea=
st
semi automated by smaller trap operators / some small ISPs /
spamcop.net
ARF'd feedback loops from the large providers (which are mutually
provided to each other - each large provider offers one, and
subscribes to those provided by other SPs) are usually sent to a
separate address and auto processed.
--=20
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
