On Jan 5, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote: > or an industry standard, RFC REQUIRED abuse@ address. > > Section 1 of RFC2142
abuse@ works, but it isn't the fastest method for reaching the correct team. What I think a lot of y'all are missing is that we have more than one product, and (unfortunately) a lot of legacy domain names, so anything sent to abuse@ goes into a general queue which gets sorted later. Neil and I have been trying to give you the fastest method for resolving issues, but if you'd rather take it slow... *shurg* One of the things I've noticed about the anti-spam community over the years is that we'll always heap way more abuse on anyone who is willing to listen than we do on the spammers who aren't listening at all. That's never a good idea, because it chases away people who might otherwise be listening -- or even helping. (Oh BTW, take a look at the acknowledgements section of RFC 2142.) -- J.D. Falk <jdf...@returnpath.net> Return Path Inc
