nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:17:44 -0400
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 08:49:39PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Abuse desk is a $0 revenue operation. Is it not obvious what the issue is?
Two points, the first of which is addressed to this and the second of which is more of a recommended attitude. 1. There is no doubt that many operations consider it so, but it's really not. Operations which don't adequately deal with abuse issues are going to incur tangible and intangible costs (e.g., money spent cleaning up local messes and getting off numerous blacklists, loss of business due to reputation, etc.). Those costs are likely to increase as more and more people become increasingly annoyed with abuse-source operations and express that via software and business decisions. I'll concede that this is really difficult to measure (at the moment) but it's not zero. 2. When one's network operation abuses someone (or someone else's operation), you owe them a fix, an explanation, and an apology. After all, it happened in your operation on your watch, therefore you're personally responsible for it. And when someone in that position -- a victim of abuse -- has magnanimously documented the incident and reported it to you, thus providing you with free consulting services -- you owe them your thanks. After all, they caught something that got by you -- and they've shared that with you, thus enabling you to run a better operation, which in turn means fewer future abuse incidents, which in turn means lower tangible and intangible costs. And far more importantly, it means being a better network neighbor, something we should all be working toward all the time. ---Rsk
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update], (continued)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Marshall Eubanks (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] William Herrin (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Rich Kulawiec (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Steve Atkins (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] William Herrin (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Steve Atkins (Apr 15)
- RE: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] michael.dillon (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Joe Abley (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Martin Hannigan (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Rich Kulawiec (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] William Herrin (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Dave Pooser (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Simon Waters (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Joe Abley (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Greg Skinner (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Jack Bates (Apr 16)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] JC Dill (Apr 17)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Jack Bates (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] mark seiden-via mac (Apr 15)