On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 15:23 -0400, Al Iverson wrote: [...snip...] > But, I disagree when it comes to receiving spam complaints. How long > have you manned, monitored or supported an active abuse address? 10+ > years here. [...snip...]
About 8 years. CTO (for mailbox provider) so literally owned it. I agree 100% that a provider needs to have an accessible (well beyond what 2142 says), functional and process-driven anti-abuse function which treats the reporter as a customer. And it kills me when I see a provider reduce the anti-abuse function to either looking for an email address to remove from their spammer client's list or pretending that they will keep you in the loop only to see the same offender again next month because they don't care. But, the original poster wasn't asking for our personal opinions on how anti-abuse desks should be run, they were just looking for advise on sending abuse reports to Google customers. That's the question I answered, not how providers should or shouldn't handle complaints. These day, I try and help people get their email delivered. I find a pragmatic approach to mailbox providers (as we both agree) works best in this role. Keep up the good fight. Ken. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
