der Mouse <mouse(_at_)Rodents-Montreal(_dot_)ORG> wrote:
[John Leslie wrote:]
4) there _could_ be value in an automated way to tell Earthlink about
abuse;
5) any use of <abuse(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)com> cannot serve that purpose;
Why not? I can't think why an "automated way" such as (4) mentions
couldn't be carried on top of email to abuse(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)com(_dot_)
1) <abuse(_at_)anywhere> is spammed too heavily
2) <abuse(_at_)earthlink> necessarily has earthlink-specific processing
For a reporting procedure to be practical, we need to avoid the
N * M problem.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg