On Dec 11, 2015 12:19 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
Friday, Dec 11, 2015 2:35 PM Rich Kulawiec wrote:
If all email providers were behaving in a professional, ethical,
responsible fashion -- which includes, among other things, individually
answering and acting on every single message sent to their "abuse"
address -- then we could give this serious consideration.
This practice has been abandoned because it is impossible to do, not
because people are bad. The system has a massive scaling problem.
DOSing an admin problem report mailbox is trivially easy, and it's
automatic, because spammers always send spam to known addresses like this.
So how on earth _could_ any operator of mail service behave in what you
are describe as a "professional, ethical, responsible fashion?"
If the mail architecture is set up in such a way that people cannot
operate it according to the specifications, is that a problem with the
people, or with the architecture?
Manual abuse complaints and handling have been mostly replaced with
automated handling involving specific report formats (ARF) from
authenticated trusted parties (FBLs). It is true these systems aren't
designed to say thanks.
I'm unclear how any of this is relevant to this discussion. Our automated
systems can obviously pull the relevant IPs from encrypted headers. We can
also make them available to law enforcement following legal procedures.
ietf-smtp mailing list