Hello NANOG,
Just a quick note thanking those that responded to me on and off list. I
appreciate the input!
--
Landon Stewart
>> Savvis had a significant spam problem when I
>> arrived, and until just a few months before I left, had literally none.
> Howdy,
>
> Out of curiosity, what changed a few months before you left?
Without retelling the *entire* [very public] story: we acquired another
large carrier with several h
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:31:54PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
>> If you know you have pro spammers on your network, the question
>> isn't how much to obfuscate spam complaints you receive...it's why
>> haven't you terminated the customer(s)?
>
>
Pretty much this. It's your business model to have your email be
deliverable, while it is not my business model that your mail is received.
If I get spam outside of obvious cases of receiver issues, I just block.
I'm not going to bother to jump through hoops to report issues you should
be dealing w
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:31:54PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> If you know you have pro spammers on your network, the question
> isn't how much to obfuscate spam complaints you receive...it's why
> haven't you terminated the customer(s)?
Another question is "why are you relying on third parties to t
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Nonaht Leyte wrote:
> As many here know, I spent 4 years on the receiving end of the
> abuse@savvisbox: when I was hired it was for multiple roles, but the
> abuse@was a primary. Savvis had a significant spam problem when I
> arrived, and
> until just a few months
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
>> so aside from the abusers his customers will tend to
>> be heavy on single-recipient administrative emails rather than mailing
>> lists.
>
> Then, if they are truly one-to-one administrative emails, that's
> rather odd if they are ge
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Nonaht Leyte wrote:
Any abuse department which outright rejects (or claims they are unable to
> process) an obfuscated ("munged") complaint is not to be trusted - period.
>
This is very credible from someone admitting to scrubbing reports, of
information required b
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Landon wrote:
Hello,
We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spammi
> If you send him a complaint scrubbed in the manner you describe, he
> won't have enough information to act. You'd basically be wasting both
> his time and yours.
As many here know, I spent 4 years on the receiving end of the
abuse@savvisbox: when I was hired it was for multiple roles, but the
ab
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Landon wrote:
> Hello,
>
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
> headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
> intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware infection
> allowing
> so aside from the abusers his customers will tend to
> be heavy on single-recipient administrative emails rather than mailing
> lists.
Then, if they are truly one-to-one administrative emails, that's rather odd if
they are generating a disproportionate number of spam complaints, dontcha
thin
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
> Because this is an issue inherent primarily with bulk mail,
> we remove all identifying information *except* the unsub link,
> which *should* have a unique identifying token embedded
> within, from which the sender *should* be able to
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon wrote:
>> How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
>> headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it?s
>> intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware infection
>> allowing a t
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Incidentally, I'd suggest that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
> of cure. Simply block outbound tcp port 25 for new hosting customers
> on a "tell me if you want it open" basis.
>
>
Or to thwart those clever spammers, block inbound S
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon wrote:
> We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
> under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
Incidentally, I'd suggest that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. Simply block outbound tcp p
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon wrote:
> How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
> headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
> intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware infection
> allowing a third part
Hello,
We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
int
18 matches
Mail list logo
