Do you obfuscate email headers when reporting spam issues to clients?
ikiris at gmail.com
Thu Nov 7 19:00:40 UTC 2013
Pretty much this. It's your business model to have your email be
deliverable, while it is not my business model that your mail is received.
If I get spam outside of obvious cases of receiver issues, I just block.
I'm not going to bother to jump through hoops to report issues you should
be dealing with yourself. Don't expect others to do your work for you,
otherwise don't be surprised when your deliverability is impacted, instead
of your abuse desk.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:31:54PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > If you know you have pro spammers on your network, the question
> > isn't how much to obfuscate spam complaints you receive...it's why
> > haven't you terminated the customer(s)?
> Another question is "why are you relying on third parties to tell you
> that abuse is outbound from your operation? Why don't you already know?"
> Alright, two questions. But my point is that all competent operations
> have their own set of diverse spamtraps AND they not only passively
> monitor them, but they actively seed them in order to detect spammers.
> This not only gives them a chance to pro-actively terminate spammers
> before they have the opportunity to abuse third parties, but it also
> enables independent, controlled corroboration of reports received --
> whether obfuscated or not. (Anything received at those spamtraps other
> than an attempt to confirm a subscription via a proper COI process
> is clearly spam or a typo. The incidence rate of the latter can be
> decreased at will with minimal effort.)
More information about the NANOG