Spam (un)blocking

Howard, W. Lee L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Fri Apr 8 13:21:49 UTC 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Daniel Senie
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:43 PM
> To: JP Velders; Adam Jacob Muller
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Spam (un)blocking
> 
> At 06:10 PM 4/6/2005, JP Velders wrote:
> 
> >Over here in "RIPE land" so to speak, several ISP's (most 
> notably FIRST 
> >members) have put a lot of effort in getting 'IRT' objects in the 
> >RipeDB.
> 
> And this is MUCH appreciated. When trying to figure out where 
> to send spam 
> complaints, a network that's taken the time to put their 
> abuse address in 
> their records certainly appears to at least care, and so gets 
> better treatment.

"Better" != "good."  In past experience,

- Since the Abuse POC was "abuse@" instead of "Lee.Howard@" it wasn't
acceptable.
- Because "abuse@" went to a 24x7 team, with an auto-responder, and
(on advice of counsel and for scalability reasons) we did not reply
to every complaint with a description of the action taken, it was 
assumed no action was taken.

There's no pleasing some people, and it's a shame that not everyone
can take the time to understand what filtering policies they're
importing.

YMMV

Lee



More information about the NANOG mailing list