It’d be real interesting to open-source this somehow, produce a useable open or quasi open (maybe curated somehow) reputation score for email.
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. > On Dec 30, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:41:43PM -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote: >> And if the last 15 years has shown us anything, it is that when you >> can't get past the auto-attendant and talk to a real human, and if >> that person can't talk to you like a person instead of reading scripts >> at you, your stress levels go way up as does your desire to break >> things. Automation in customer service (or excessive emphasis on >> procedures) is a really nice way of taking a five minute problem and >> turning it into an hour long ordeal. > > There are some easy methods for service/support organizations to decrease > the pain that this inflicts on people reporting problems. > > For example, one thing that I've taught people to do is to make liberal > use of procmail in order to sort incoming traffic to role accounts. > It requires diligence, but that diligence is repaid many times over by > how it expedites dealing with problems. A simple example of this is > that when a problem report is received at the RFC 2142 security@ role > address, and it's clueful, well-written, and important, a procmail rule > gets created for the sending address so that all future messages from > that address are prioritized...because it obviously came from someone who > knows what the heck they're doing and did us a favor by telling us that > we have a problem. Chances are that any future messages from them will > be similarly helpful and that if we respond to those quickly we may be > able to forestall a lot more messages that aren't going to be as clueful. > > The opposite thing is done with clueless/misdirected/etc. reports: > they're not discarded, but they go into the low-priority queue. > > Everything else goes somewhere in the middle. > > Repeated hundreds or thousands of times over many years, this builds a > ruleset that pre-sorts messages rather well. It's not perfect, it's not > foolproof, but it helps us *and* it helps lower the frustration level of > people sending clueful messages, because it better positions us to read, > act on, and respond to those. Those people are catching our mistakes, > the least we can do is try to pay attention. > > (Hint: a useful way to begin building such a ruleset is to grab all the > addresses from NANOG, dnsops, outages, etc. and pre-load the ruleset > with them...because traffic received at role accounts from participants > in these mailing lists is probably useful.) > > ---rsk