I am referring to the fact that the wording of the autoreply suggests
that Hetzner is simply passing complaints verbatim to the spammers
themselves and not dealing with it yourselves.
If we were passing them on verbatim we wouldn’t have to manually process
them. The whole point is not to simply refer to our abuse form, which
many people dislike (including many on here), but instead to process
individual email complaints ourselves. That needs to be done manually,
since we need to check what the issue is, what information is provided,
and figure out what we can pass on to our client. That takes time.
As for the spammers comment, you know that the vast majority of spam
leaving our network is from compromised servers. Most spam complaints we
get are for legitimate clients. There are spammers who try to sign up
with us, but those that get through and start spamming don't last very long.
We deal with this by giving our client a chance to resolve the issue. If
they don't, then we take action. Blocking servers for a single abuse
complaint without first informing our client about a potential issue is
not something that a reliable hosting partner would do.
> And I think the bigger issue is one of resourcing. If Hetzner is now
> processing all abuse reports manually,
Uff, that would be rough. Please note that individual email complaints
does not mean all abuse reports.
For the sake of completeness: we get lots of automated abuse complaints
that are processed automatically. If we’re only talking spam, then think
of the complaints from blacklists (like Spamhaus, SpamCop, SORBS, 0Spam,
or EGP), FBLs (mostly from Validity and SPFBL), and companies (like
Netcraft, clean-mx, and many more).
These are dealt with in a timely manner, and a quick look at the
blacklists that show data for entire networks/companies will show that
we take spam seriously.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
