Hello NANOG,
Just a quick note thanking those that responded to me on and off list. I
appreciate the input!
--
Landon Stewart landonstew...@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:31:54PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
If you know you have pro spammers on your network, the question
isn't how much to obfuscate spam complaints you receive...it's why
haven't you terminated the customer(s)?
Another question is why are you relying on third parties to tell
Pretty much this. It's your business model to have your email be
deliverable, while it is not my business model that your mail is received.
If I get spam outside of obvious cases of receiver issues, I just block.
I'm not going to bother to jump through hoops to report issues you should
be dealing
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:31:54PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
If you know you have pro spammers on your network, the question
isn't how much to obfuscate spam complaints you receive...it's why
haven't you terminated the
Savvis had a significant spam problem when I
arrived, and until just a few months before I left, had literally none.
Howdy,
Out of curiosity, what changed a few months before you left?
Without retelling the *entire* [very public] story: we acquired another
large carrier with several
Hello,
We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon landonstew...@gmail.com wrote:
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware infection
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon landonstew...@gmail.com wrote:
We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
Incidentally, I'd suggest that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Incidentally, I'd suggest that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. Simply block outbound tcp port 25 for new hosting customers
on a tell me if you want it open basis.
Or to thwart those clever spammers, block
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Landon landonstew...@gmail.com wrote:
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it?s
intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
amitch...@isipp.com wrote:
Because this is an issue inherent primarily with bulk mail,
we remove all identifying information *except* the unsub link,
which *should* have a unique identifying token embedded
within, from which the sender
so aside from the abusers his customers will tend to
be heavy on single-recipient administrative emails rather than mailing
lists.
Then, if they are truly one-to-one administrative emails, that's rather odd if
they are generating a disproportionate number of spam complaints, dontcha
think?
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Landon landonstew...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of spamming activity regardless of if it’s
intentional/professional spammer activity or some kind of malware
If you send him a complaint scrubbed in the manner you describe, he
won't have enough information to act. You'd basically be wasting both
his time and yours.
As many here know, I spent 4 years on the receiving end of the
abuse@savvisbox: when I was hired it was for multiple roles, but the
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Landon wrote:
Hello,
We (iWeb AS32613) are currently making great strides in getting out from
under the volume of reports received and getting on top of things.
How much trouble does your abuse department go to in order to obfuscate
headers when providing evidence of
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Nonaht Leyte alif.terran...@gmail.comwrote:
Any abuse department which outright rejects (or claims they are unable to
process) an obfuscated (munged) complaint is not to be trusted - period.
This is very credible from someone admitting to scrubbing reports, of
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
amitch...@isipp.com wrote:
so aside from the abusers his customers will tend to
be heavy on single-recipient administrative emails rather than mailing
lists.
Then, if they are truly one-to-one administrative emails, that's
rather odd if
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Nonaht Leyte alif.terran...@gmail.com wrote:
As many here know, I spent 4 years on the receiving end of the
abuse@savvisbox: when I was hired it was for multiple roles, but the
abuse@was a primary. Savvis had a significant spam problem when I
arrived, and
18 matches
Mail list logo
