[192405] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Oct 27 16:17:17 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1610271135020.31630@yuri.anime.net>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:17:14 -0400
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
>>>
>> it's also totally possible that in some cases the mailbox for abuse@ got
>> moved behind some orgs other mail systems... This happened numerous times
>> at $PREVIOUS_EMPLOYER. When moving around ~200k mailboxes 1 special
>> unicorn
>> often gets mishandled :(
>>
>> we wouldn't find out until someone called in all complainy about how 'you
>> never care about email... blah...' "Sure we care, but our mail-admin team
>> sometimes breaks us, whoops!"
>>
>> ascribing malice is often unhelpful... Also, of course it's your network
>> you can balkanize from the rest of the internet as much as you please.
>>
>
> not so much malice as gross incompetence.
>
> running spamfilters on your abuse@ mailbox, really? that is, for those
> which actually have an abuse mailbox that doesn't bounce outright.
>
> again, ascribing malice where it doesn't necessarily exist isn't helpful.
