nanog mailing list archives
Re: really amazon?
From: Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:33:23 -0700
On 7/31/19 1:28 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote:Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS.I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it.
I don't know about your network, but I have five role mail accounts, and all five get spam, even with spam filters enabled. Oh, forgot about abuse@, which has no filter but LOTS of spam. What's fun is to let it sit a couple of days, then sort by subject. Delete the "conversations". That gets down to the zero or one piece of ham. But then again, I've locked down my network so abuse doesn't get out, even when someone manages to get by the MAC filters on the wireless router.
Current thread:
- Re: really amazon?, (continued)
- Re: really amazon? Robert McKay (Jul 30)
- Not noreply autoresponder (WAS: really amazon?) Christoffer Hansen (Jul 30)
- Re: really amazon? Christoffer Hansen (Jul 30)
- Re: really amazon? Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 30)
- Re: really amazon? Rich Kulawiec (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Richard Williams via NANOG (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Valdis Klētnieks (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Scott Christopher (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Denys Fedoryshchenko (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Brian J. Murrell (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Stephen Satchell (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Rich Kulawiec (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Scott Christopher (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Rich Kulawiec (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Richard Williams via NANOG (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Landon Stewart (Jul 31)
- Re: really amazon? Stephen Satchell (Jul 31)