[192407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nanog@namor.ca)
Thu Oct 27 16:30:52 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:30:39 -0500
From: J <nanog@namor.ca>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <22546.22491.133208.5212@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I will admit, it's one of the faster ways I pick up on phishing campaigns against our users. So I'm not entirely against it.
I'm in the camp of not replying to every report.
---- On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:39:07 -0500 <bzs@TheWorld.com> wrote ----
FWIW abuse@whatever seems to be a favorite in many spammers' lists.
I doubt that's their intent, seems like a good way to draw attention
to the spam from people with access to blocking lists etc, so I'll
guess they just blindly harvest web sites etc and abuse@whatever shows
up frequently.
That certainly doesn't help with the volume, some of that slips thru
spam filters, it adds up.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
