Hello Hans-Martin, > It's hard to distinguish being ignored from just not getting an answer and > not seeing an effective solution. I can't see what abuse desk workers do, I > can only see response mails in my inbox and (with some delay) reductions in > spam levels. Apparently there was some action against the spamming accounts > yesterday around 11:50, yet today around 13:40 they started again. >
Let me tell you, that we do treat every abuse report we get seriously. We have either automated processes that take care of them or my team does manually. We are also very aware of the calendar invite spam that is send by our systems and we do act against it. And we’re also very thankful for every external report we get. Though, only in very rare cases you will get an answer to an abuse report. But like I said: They’re not ignored. Best regards Arne Arne Allisat Head of Mail Application Security Produktmanagement Portal 1&1 Mail & Media GmbH | Brauerstraße 48 | 76135 Karlsruhe | Germany E-Mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | Web: www.1und1.de <http://www.1und1.de/> > Am 18.05.2021 um 18:28 schrieb Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop > <[email protected]>: > > Am 17.05.21 um 13:12 schrieb Marc Ballarin via mailop: >> Hello, >> >> None of the complaints you sent references a mail sent via IONOS' systems. >> Please note that GMX, mail.com <http://mail.com/> and WEB.DE >> <http://web.de/> are distinct companies, products, mail systems as well as >> abuse teams. That being said, we do receive and preprocess most complaints >> addressed to them, but only on a technical level. >> > Thanks for taking the time to answer! > > Excuse me if I'm not fully up-to-date on the United Internet group structure > and don't always remember which are corporations within the group and which > are just brands under which products are sold. > > In these cases the common pattern is that they are sent using a calender > invitation system that is apparently being used by several of those companies > for their customers, through outgoing IP addresses for which > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> seems to be the right abuse > address, which is the one SpamCop uses IIRC. If a RIPE member publishes an > abuse address for IP ranges, I suppose it's not by accident but expresses the > intent to handle abuse reports about mail being sent via those IP addresses. > >> I cannot comment on the details of their abuse processes - nor can I access >> any of their contract or case data -, but I know that they do not ignore >> complaints. > It's hard to distinguish being ignored from just not getting an answer and > not seeing an effective solution. I can't see what abuse desk workers do, I > can only see response mails in my inbox and (with some delay) reductions in > spam levels. Apparently there was some action against the spamming accounts > yesterday around 11:50, yet today around 13:40 they started again. > > I really don't care so much whether my individual complaints are answered, > although in the long run it creates a feeling that there's not much interest > in receiving abuse reports. My main intent is to notify operators of mail > systems about problems they are having, not ask them to solve my problems > (which are much more effectively solved technically by blocking the spam). > >> >> That being said, even if this had been IONOS' customers you most likely >> would not have received any response as well. We definitely would have >> suspended the responsible accounts, but we only send responses if absolutely >> needed to resolve a case. In this case, the complaints were sent via >> SpamCop, which uses a nice, structured format, and they contained all >> necessary proof as well as all data needed to identify the sender. >> >> Regards >> Marc > I see the general dilemma the freemailers are having: They must provide easy > account creation and are therefore susceptible to robotically created > accounts, while not generating a lot of revenue from their users, so the > incentive to check and vet newly created accounts is small. Still, the use of > "mass" e-mailing facilities could be restricted to accounts which have some > legitimacy and reputation. > > Cheers, and thanks again, > Hans-Martin > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
