nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes
From: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe () hammerfiber com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 14:48:38 +0000
On 8/5/2018 18:46:36, "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk () gsp org> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 07:43:36PM +0000, Daniel Corbe wrote: This is a solvable problem. If they're sending unsolicited bulk email (aka "spam"), then they are, by definition, spammers. Block them and move on. If/when they decide to send proper DMCA notices and send them to the proper address, perhaps you can then allow them to petition for the privilege of access to your mail system.
It doesn't work like that though. I can't just bitbucket DMCA takedown requests because I also provide people with cable TV service. That means I have content contracts and these contracts are all very specific about what I need to do to process DMCA takedown requests. I'm sure that they receive reports regularly from the companies they contract to do DMCA enforcment. Or maybe they don't and I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I'm still not going to put my content contracts at risk because I think my users would be even more pissed off if their cable TV packages were suddenly unavailable to them.
Current thread:
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes, (continued)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Ross Tajvar (Aug 03)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Rich Kulawiec (Aug 04)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes nanog (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Jérôme Nicolle (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Michael Hallgren (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes nanog (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes nusenu (Aug 08)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Rich Kulawiec (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Jérôme Nicolle (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes valdis . kletnieks (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 07)