Yahoo Mail Update
Frank Bulk - iNAME
frnkblk at iname.com
Tue Apr 15 03:29:48 UTC 2008
It seems like you're saying that there's no law when it comes to internet
best-practices, and that's true, there's very little legislated. But
there's a lots of best practices out there that are definitely worth
following. Unfortunately business decisions don't always align themselves
with the BCPs.
Yes, internet service providers and operators don't need to listen, but I
can't see how Yahoo's e-mail and abuse handling history arises out of good
business decisions. Tell my users and tell the members of this list that --
we won't agree.
As posted elsewhere, delayed delivery queues are well-represented by Yahoo.
If an single operator dominates my 99% of delivery delay that's pretty close
to black and white for me.
72 hours to respond to e-mail sent to the abuse account? That's much too
long -- it should be at least a 4 hour response time during business hours,
and for service providers and operators large enough to staff their network
24x7 for other reasons, 4 hour response time all the time.
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ross
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Rob Szarka
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Yahoo Mail Update
You can tell Earthlink whatever you want but it doesn't mean they need
to follow it. Please read my previous reply about business decisions.
I would agree that it is good for business to try and follow industry
standards but sometimes business decisions need to be made where
standards cannot be implemented. I'm not saying that is the case here
and it could just be utter incompetence but not everything is black
A working abuse account is not the minimum requirement, I can run a
mail system without that abuse account but may get blocked from
sending mail to certain systems. Read above for my thoughts on
With that being said I do believe all companies should have a working
abuse email that is appropriately staffed that can respond to
complaints within 72 hours.
More information about the NANOG