nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update]
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:50:28 -0500
Dave Pooser wrote:
Handling the abuse desk well (or poorly) builds (or damages) the brand....among people who are educated among such things. Unfortunately, people with clue are orders of magnitude short of a majority, and the rest of the world (ie: potential customers) wouldn't know an abuse desk from a self-abuse desk.
I think that depends on the nature of the abuse desk, how it interfaces with other networks and the customer base. Of course, I get to be the NOC guy and the abuse guy here. It's nice to have less than a million customers. However, I find that how NOC issues and abuse issues are handled are very similar. It is, of course, easier to reach another NOC than it is the senior abuse staff that actually have clue, generally. Both departments need a certain amount of front line protection to keep them from being swamped with issues that can be handled by others. Never the less, when they can interface with customers and with the other departments that spend more time with customers, it does improve the company's service level.
If there is a routing, firewalling, or email delivery issue with a much larger network, the effectiveness of the NOC/Abuse Dept will determine how well the customers will handle the interruption. If the company has built trust with the customer and related to them in a personal way, then the customer will in turn tend to be more understanding of the issues involved, or in some cases at least point their anger at the right company.
-Jack Learning to mitigate the damage caused by Murphy's law.
Current thread:
- RE: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update], (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 15)
- Re: Abuse response [Was: RE: Yahoo Mail Update] Joe Provo (Apr 15)