ARF (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt>, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6650.txt) and X-ARF (http://www.x-arf.org/index.html <http://www.x-arf.org/index.html>) are used quite alot and many, like Yahoo, only accept ARF reports on abusive emails.
you might want to read MAAWG’s BCP: https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reporting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf <https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reporting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf> Tom > On Dec 25, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clay...@mnsi.net> wrote: > > Just an off the cuff thought but if the format of the abuse messages could be > standardized so handling them would be semi-automated somewhat like ACNS > notices, it might improve response. > > Maybe such a format already exists and just isn't widely used. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 25, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote: >>> >>> why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse reports, >>> normal slow speed network abuse is tolerated, but not high speed deliberate >>> abuse albeit compromised machines >> >> This is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most ISPs do >> not respond to abuse reports. >> >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
