[65842] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: In need of help from Comcast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Fri Dec 12 14:29:03 2003
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:28:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart@att.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <5AFA5A2C102DAB4692ABC1E87E0780CA065C12B5@OCCLUST02EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> For ISPs, it's important to make sure that abuse@ and similar
> NOC addresses don't block incoming mail. (Similarly,
> spam filters can make it difficult to submit spam complaints...)
Its easier said than done. Unfortunately, there are DOS attacks
on ISP abuse@ (and other well known addresses) in progress. Perhaps
all ISPs should always have enough capacity to handle an infinite
number of messages to any contact; but reality sometimes intrudes.
I don't know a good answer to the problem. You don't want filters
on your Abuse contact, but then it gets abused.
As a general policy the best I've come up with is Abuse should not
be included in the "standard" corporate or ISP filters/blocks. However,
Abuse may have separate filters to deal with abuse specifically directed
at Abuse.
