Absolutely unrelated to Ronald's original post, but it's ironic that the abuse@ address is itself heavily "abused", by commercial copyright enforcement companies which think it's a catch-all address for things which are not operationally related to the health of a network (BGP hijacks, DDoS, spam email traffic, botnet/virus/worm/trojan traffic command and control and such).
Despite the presence of a registered DMCA agent address[1][2] for an ASN, many companies continue to flood abuse@ with copyright notices. Ask any ISP that operates in the English language Internet but is not physically located in the USA (NZ, AU, CA, etc) how many USA-specific legal threats their abuse inbox receives. Usually for something like a residential customer torrenting a TV show. 1: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/ 2: https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/onlinesp/NPR/faq.html On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:50 AM Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:23:34AM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote: > > We would prefer, but don't require, that you use the web form because > that > > is integrated into the workflow of the groups that respond to those > > reports. > > Why isn't abuse@ integrated into the workflow? It darn well should be, > (a) given that RFC 2142 has been "on the books" for 22 years and > (b) given that methods for handling incoming abuse (or bug, or outage, > or other) reports via email to role accounts are numerous and reliable. > > To be clear: if you want to offer a web form in addition to an abuse@ > address (or a security@ address, or a postmaster@ address) that's fine. > But web forms are a markedly inferior means of communication and are > clearly not a substitute for well-known/standardized role addresses that > route to the appropriate people/processes. > > ---rsk > >