[166824] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Automatic abuse reports
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Moats)
Wed Nov 13 05:53:25 2013
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:51:12 -0500
From: Sam Moats <sam@circlenet.us>
Mail-Reply-To: <sam@circlenet.us>
In-Reply-To: <CANZ_Bxp7xwMsEC9ddn-4NcdsyWeod1Nqiepbb7vyCJTDWmkk9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: sam@circlenet.us
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There are good guys out there :-), and some are gorilla sized thats why
I
obfuscated the names in my response. No offense intended to the goood
ones.
Sam Moats
On 2013-11-13 05:48, Paul Bennett wrote:
> I can't speak directly for them, as I'm not an official company
> spokesperson, but this conversation has got my dander up enough that
> I
> can't keep my big mouth shut.
>
> I know of at least one 500 pound gorilla (with zillions of retail
> customers, and their share of 500 pound gorillas as customers (and
> everything in between)) that has a working and effective abuse@
> address, one that can and does aggregate and pass on abuse
> complaints,
> and that can and does suspend service over failure to fix. On
> occasion, I understand even significant customers have been not just
> suspended but terminated over failure to follow the ToS/AUP.
>
> The company in question accepts abuse complaints in ARF, MARF, X-ARF
> and IODEF format, among others, and (I cannot emphasize this enough)
> does act on them.
>
> Anyone who suggests roundfiling abuse@ complaints is (IMNSHO)
> actively
> working to make the problem worse, not better. Anyone who thinks that
> all networks do roundfile abuse@ complaints would seem to be making
> an
> over-generalization.
>
> Note, once again, that these are my opinions, and not my employers',
> so much so that I can't even tell you directly who my employer is.
> Not
> that it's hard to find out, but I'm so very much not speaking in an
> official capacity here.
>
>
> --
> Paul
