Best practices for [email protected] mailbox and network abuse complaint handling?

Al Iverson aliversonchicagolists at gmail.com
Sun May 13 14:01:33 UTC 2007


On 5/12/07, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog at bakker.net> wrote:
>
> * ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Sat 12 May 2007, 05:25 CEST]:
> > On 5/11/07, K K <kkadow at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Probably 98% of the mailbox is from are spammers who've harvested or
> >> randomly targeted [email protected] addresses for male enhancement, maybe 1.99%
> > So?  A little filtering should handle a lot of that, procmail even.
> > At least to file the obvious crap into a different folder that can be
> > looked at and blown away
>
> Difficult, as spam complaints generally include the original spam and
> thus trigger SpamAssassin (almost) just as hard.

SpamAssassin isn't the only way to filter spam. It's not bad, but pure
content filtering is probably not the way to go for an abuse desk.

> Otherwise, looking forward to your 98% effective procmail recipe

Mine didn't even need procmail, just piped inbound mail through a
shell script I wrote, with about an 80% success rate, and no false
positives.

Regards,
Al Iverson

-- 
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverabilty, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com   --   Chicago, IL, USA



More information about the NANOG mailing list