Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?

Todd Underwood 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.

:-)

t

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net>
wrote:

> 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 mailing list