On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Do you think I am wrong in thinking that only spam should be
> reported to the abuse departments?
Wrong? No, there's probably no right or wrong in
this.
Reporting addresses vary from ISP to ISP. Some handle
all kinds of complaints at "abuse" while others prefer
port scans and other cracking activity go to "security."
Does sending a virus constitute abuse of a network,
or cracking? Depending on the virus, I suppose it
could fall under either or both.
"postmaster" is generally used for non-spam e-mail
issues, and as such is often used for virus reporting.
Oftentimes, depending on the size of the ISP, "abuse"
and "postmaster" are the same guy.
I checked out my own ISP's contact page and the
addresses they list (with descriptions of what issues
each handles) are: comments, marketing, sales, billing,
support, abuse, and webmaster.
Given that list, "abuse" is the only one that would
seem to fit.
Most ISPs aren't nearly so forthcoming with a list
of e-mail contacts, so "abuse" with a cc to "postmaster"
would probably be the surest way to get it to the
relevant person.
- Steve
