|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:16:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4E34CA02.9080800@sorbs.net> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org > A valid and well put argument. I don't know what we do with stuff to > webmaster@ however I do know that it is possible that messages to it > will go into the spamtrap system. (the spamtrap system has multiple > entry points, and a mail going in does not guarentee a listing, but it > is likely, especially if the message is repeated to multiple addresses > and therefore is 'bulk'.) Respectfully, I'm unconvinced that fewer than 10 recipients (sending to web= master and cc'ing netops) constitutes sending in 'bulk'. For instance, USP= S requires 200 recipients for standard mail to classify such mail as 'bulk'= [1]. That number seems quite high to me, but then again, 2-10 seems quite = low. In the past, I've had a heck of a time getting blocks delisted from SORBs -= even getting a PI assignment removed from the DUHL, which isn't even a lis= t of abusive blocks, was tough. Again respectfully, if so many operations = people have a problem with the way SORBS operates, doesn't that represent a= valid concern? Operators constitute the bulk of your users, and they are,= by and large, frustrated. The fact that they are trying to reach out via = other methods should tell you something - and it isn't that the operators a= re doing it wrong (and should therefore be punished). Writing as a human, not as my employer, Nathan Eisenberg =20 [1] - http://pe.usps.com/businessmail101/getstarted/bulkmail.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |