nanog mailing list archives
Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:08:25 -0400
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net> 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 around ~200k mailboxes 1 special unicorn often gets mishandled :( we wouldn't find out until someone called in all complainy about how 'you never care about email... blah...' "Sure we care, but our mail-admin team sometimes breaks us, whoops!" ascribing malice is often unhelpful... Also, of course it's your network you can balkanize from the rest of the internet as much as you please.
Current thread:
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Stephen Satchell (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Jimmy Hess (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Stephen Satchell (Oct 27)
- Re: Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? J (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Leo Bicknell (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Steve Atkins (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? bzs (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Steve Atkins (Oct 27)