Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
toddunder at gmail.com
Thu Oct 27 18:18:11 UTC 2016
to answer the actual question:
all abuse mailboxes have quotas, either implicitly or explicitly.
the amount of storage available to any given mailsystem is finite.
technically correct. it's the best kind of correct.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net>
> For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
> to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
> "mailbox exceeds quota". I take this to mean that there isn't someone
> actively reading, acting on, and deleting e-mail from [email protected]<whomever>.
> So my new rule is this: bounce an abuse e-mail message, sent to an
> abuse address announced for the netrange, and the ENTIRE NETRANGE gets
> put in my "reject forever" firewall. I've ask all my customers about
> this action, and all agree that it's reasonable, because an
> administration with an active abuse desk shouldn't ever have their abuse
> mailbox overflow. (Especially in this day of terabyte disks.)
> Or they need more people on their abuse desk.
> Or they need to eliminate the problem that generates so many abuse
> e-mails that it fills up their should-be-enormous mail queue.
> I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
More information about the NANOG