> On 23 Jan 2021, at 22:56, Ángel via mailop wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-22 at 18:24 +, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote:
>> I think it’s a great idea. We’ve even discussed putting a RFC
>> together listing this as best practice but have not found the time to
>> do it. Updating / superseding 2142
In article <6b96f527-0f53-494f-bb65-3e450a386...@wordtothewise.com> you write:
>> Note: Some people will vehemently oppose to not placing filters,
>> though. Some threads at RIPE anti-abuse-wg show that.
>
>There are extremely valid reasons to filter mail coming into the abuse mailbox
>and I
On 2021-01-23 7:38 a.m., Noel Butler via mailop wrote:
it might be old skool, where the new kds on hte block want to use
clusterfs, but no, thast asking for trouble, and lots of media horror
stories about mail down fr days at isps around teh world justify
avoiding it, good ol NFS " just works"
On 1/22/21 06:38, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
But forwarding an abuse address that is somewhat expected to receive
problematic content to a service that tries to keep
such content out of their users' mailboxes doesn't really look very
professional, and even if it isn't technically
I’m not assuming anything. I know their mail is read and responded to.
Laura
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 24, 2021, at 6:24 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop
> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/21 06:38, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop wrote:
>
>> But forwarding an abuse address that is somewhat expected to
On 2021-01-24 at 12:52 -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <6b96f527-0f53-494f-bb65-3e450a386...@wordtothewise.com>
> you write:
> > > Note: Some people will vehemently oppose to not placing filters,
> > > though. Some threads at RIPE anti-abuse-wg show that.
> >
> > There are
