[21885] in North American Network Operators' Group
Reporting abuse (was Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J.D. Falk)
Sun Nov 22 01:55:03 1998
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:23:30 -0800
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cp.net>
To: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199811200623.WAA03946@condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com>; from Roeland M.J. Meyer on Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 10:23:00PM -0800
On 11/19/98, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
> Actually, it is somewhat easier for them. I have it on good authority that
> the mail admin at AOL gets regular detailed traces from SPAM-L and other
> private sources. Many of the SPAM complaints not only come with detailed
> headers, but traceroutes as well. NetCom also benefits from their users in
> this way. All that is required is to verify the analysis as being valid,
> check the logs, and move on from there.
Since the abuse folks have to verify that the analysis is
valid, why even include the analysis?
Personally, when dealing with complaints, I tend to ignore
all "analysis" and other text except the forwarded message
itself unless I'm at a loss as to figure out why it was sent
to my abuse department.
I've spoken to a number of other abuse leads who feel the
same way.
--
J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cp.net> "Nathan says hi."
Special Agent In Charge (Abuse Issues)
Critical Path, Inc.
