nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse@ contacts
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:10:45 -0500
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 04:39:54PM -0000, Gavin Pearce wrote:
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in the past? Who's good and who isn't?
Inbound: wherever I am, I try to make it a point of emphasis that incoming mail to abuse very likely represent someone trying to help us by doing the job that we failed to do, and as such, it deserves very high priority, and -- if correct -- our gratitude. Outbound: mixed. I've had excellent response from academic institutions (most recently Indiana University) and from some commercial operations (e.g., mail.com). I've had responses somewhere between "non-existent", "miserable", and "random" from major freemail providers. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Abuse@ contacts Gavin Pearce (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Simon Waters (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Daniel Seagraves (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Wayne Lee (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Jason Bertoch (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Rich Kulawiec (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Joe Greco (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Christopher Morrow (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Shaun Ewing (Dec 07)
- Re: Abuse@ contacts Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 07)