nanog mailing list archives
Re: Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
From: J <nanog () namor ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:12:15 -0500
Sorry about that, many networks do perform standard filtering on messages to Abuse contacts based on DNS RBLs, SPF/DMARC policy enforcement, virus scans, etc, and do send a SMTP Reject on detected spam or malware. I'll disagree, here. Sure, there are some basic considerations - but some of the major types of role accounts should have specific exceptions to allow the issues to actually reach the appropriate party.
Current thread:
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Stephen Satchell (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Jimmy Hess (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Stephen Satchell (Oct 27)
- Re: Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? J (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Christopher Morrow (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Leo Bicknell (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Steve Atkins (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Dan Hollis (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? bzs (Oct 27)
- Re: Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? J (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Stephen Satchell (Oct 27)
- Re: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas? Steve Atkins (Oct 27)