[192396] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Underwood)
Thu Oct 27 14:18:36 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <e359e1ce-0138-f795-fcf3-80c4bbbc825c@satchell.net>
From: Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:18:11 -0400
To: list@satchell.net
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
to answer the actual question:
all abuse mailboxes have quotas, either implicitly or explicitly.
the amount of storage available to any given mailsystem is finite.
technically correct. it's the best kind of correct.
:-)
t
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net>
wrote:
> For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
> to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
> "mailbox exceeds quota". I take this to mean that there isn't someone
> actively reading, acting on, and deleting e-mail from abuse@<whomever>.
>
> So my new rule is this: bounce an abuse e-mail message, sent to an
> abuse address announced for the netrange, and the ENTIRE NETRANGE gets
> put in my "reject forever" firewall. I've ask all my customers about
> this action, and all agree that it's reasonable, because an
> administration with an active abuse desk shouldn't ever have their abuse
> mailbox overflow. (Especially in this day of terabyte disks.)
>
> Or they need more people on their abuse desk.
>
> Or they need to eliminate the problem that generates so many abuse
> e-mails that it fills up their should-be-enormous mail queue.
>
> I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
>
