Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]

[Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
[snip]
> >  It should be simple -- not require a freeking full-blown "standard".
>
> Its a standard. And it allows automated parsing of these complaints.
> And automation increases processing speeds by orders of magnitude..
> you dont have to wait for an abuse desker to get to your email and
> pick it out of a queue with hundreds of other report emails, and
> several thousand pieces of spam [funny how abuse@domain type addresses
> end up in so many spammer lists..]

It cannot be understated that even packet pushers and code grinders
who care get stranded in companies where abuse handling is deemed 
by management to be a cost center that only saps resources.  Paul, 
you are doing a serious disservice to those folks in specific, and
working around such suit-induced damage in general, by dismissing 
any steps involving automation.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE