[69469] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lazy network operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Champeon)
Mon Apr 12 12:51:09 2004
X-Received-From: schampeo@habanero.hesketh.net
X-Delivered-To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:50:18 -0400
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <407AC47F.4020001@inoc.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
on Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 12:31:59PM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> I can understand the reasoning behind what they are doing, but perhaps
> they are taking things in the wrong direction. Our abuse@ email address
> is just that, abused. Our abuse@ mailbox gets probably 500+ spams a day
> with maybe 2-3 legit emails that we need to look at. Sure we could run
> anti-spam measures on the abuse@ address but that probably isn't the way
> to go since most complaints to abuse@ are forward spam messages which
> could be marked and then missed.
So don't do content-based filtering.
> [...] Having our techs/engineers go through the abuse@ box every day
> to play hide and seek is a bit of an agonizing task that nobody really
> wants, especially at the volume it is today.
Isn't it their job?
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e" today!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-20/ref=nosim/
