Problems sending mail to yahoo?

Sun Apr 13 23:15:41 UTC 2008

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Geo. wrote:

>
>
> > of abuse might be useful for large providers, but since we can't even
> > get many domains even to set up the already-specified abuse@ address, much
> > less read the mail we send to it,
>
> When someone like AOL offloads their user complaints of spams to all the
> abuse@ addresses instead of verifying that they actually are spams before
> sending off complaints, is it any surprise that everyone else is refusing to
> do their jobs for them?
>
> The reason abuse@ addresses are useless is because what is being sent to
> them is useless.

As one that works for a company that makes full use of complaints sent to it,
abuse@ addresses are not useless, far from it.  Please don't get the idea that
because some think they're useless, it therefore is universal.  We also get
100s of AOL feedbacks a day, which are filtered separately.  Also not useless.
And we've also reported incidents to other companies' abuse functions, and had
them be resolved same-day because of it.  Also, far from useless.

How about if you're not actively in an abuse function, you hold off on declaring
the function useless, cause the meme could catch on that it is, even if it's
not, and I've yet to see an automated filtering/blocking system fully replace or
completely obsolete a good trained network operator who understands what is and
is not abuse on the network.

-Dave D