No. They should not. (Nor should they have spam or malware filters,
since of course that's one of the things that people will forward as
part of their complaints. Anyone using a sensible email client on
a sensible platform will of course incur zero risk by handling either
of those.)
That said,
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
not so much malice as gross incompetence.
running spamfilters on your abuse@ mailbox, really? that is, for those which
actually have an abuse mailbox that doesn't bounce outright.
Sorry about that, many
Sorry about that, many networks do perform standard filtering on
messages to Abuse contacts based on DNS RBLs, SPF/DMARC
policy enforcement, virus scans, etc, and do send a SMTP Reject on
detected spam or malware.
I'll disagree, here. Sure, there are some basic considerations - but some of
On 10/27/2016 05:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> If you get a SMTP reject, then call the the Abuse POC of the organization you
> need to report abuse from.
Not when the mailbox-full bounce is from a network in China, or India,
or Pakistan, or Russia. Or a couple of other countries that seem to be
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> not so much malice as gross incompetence.
> running spamfilters on your abuse@ mailbox, really? that is, for those which
> actually have an abuse mailbox that doesn't bounce outright.
Sorry about that, many networks do perform standard filteri
On 10/27/2016 01:30 PM, J wrote:
> I'm in the camp of not replying to every report.
I was in that camp, too, when I was mail admin for a web host company.
I wanted to spend my time fixing the flood, without having to take the
time to reply.
I figure the best reply is when the spamming stops. I h
I will admit, it's one of the faster ways I pick up on phishing campaigns
against our users. So I'm not entirely against it.
I'm in the camp of not replying to every report.
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:39:07 -0500 wrote
FWIW abuse@whatever seems to be a favorite in
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
>>>
>> it's also totally possible that in some cases the mailbox for abuse
FWIW abuse@whatever seems to be a favorite in many spammers' lists.
I doubt that's their intent, seems like a good way to draw attention
to the spam from people with access to blocking lists etc, so I'll
guess they just blindly harvest web sites etc and abuse@whatever shows
up frequently.
That c
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Steve Atkins wrote:
If mail to abuse@ doesn't bounce, give them the benefit
of the doubt until statistics say otherwise.
I give them a couple weeks/months. The vast majority of them ignore, and
allow the abuse to continue.
It's amazing how quickly they respond when they
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell
wrote:
I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
it's also totally possible that in some cases the mailbox for abuse@ got
moved behind some orgs other mail systems... This happened numerous
to answer the actual question:
all abuse mailboxes have quotas, either implicitly or explicitly.
the amount of storage available to any given mailsystem is finite.
technically correct. it's the best kind of correct.
:-)
t
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell
wrote:
> For the l
>Are there any ISP's left that read and respond to abuse@ in a timely
>fashion? I haven't seen one in at least a decade. Maybe I e-mail the
>wrong ones.
Or maybe you send reports that they can't act on. Mine are all in ARF
format and ISPs reply and tell me they've acted on them all the time.
I
> On Oct 27, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> In a message written on Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:03:11AM -0700, Stephen
> Satchell wrote:
>> For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
>> to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
>> "
In a message written on Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:03:11AM -0700, Stephen Satchell
wrote:
> For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
> to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
> "mailbox exceeds quota". I take this to mean that there isn't s
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell
wrote:
>
> I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.
>
it's also totally possible that in some cases the mailbox for abuse@ got
moved behind some orgs other mail systems... This happened numerous times
at $PREVIOUS_EMPLOYER. When moving
16 matches
Mail list logo