[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?

Subject: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
From: nanog at namor.ca (J)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:30:39 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

I will admit, it's one of the faster ways I pick up on phishing campaigns against our users.  So I'm not entirely against it.

I'm in the camp of not replying to every report.

---- On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:39:07 -0500  &lt;bzs at TheWorld.com&gt; wrote ---- 

 
FWIW abuse at whatever seems to be a favorite in many spammers' lists. 
 
I doubt that's their intent, seems like a good way to draw attention 
to the spam from people with access to blocking lists etc, so I'll 
guess they just blindly harvest web sites etc and abuse at whatever shows 
up frequently. 
 
That certainly doesn't help with the volume, some of that slips thru 
spam filters, it adds up. 
 
-- 
 -Barry Shein 
 
Software Tool &amp; Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com 
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD 
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Follow-Ups:
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell)

References:
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: steve at blighty.com (Steve Atkins)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: bzs at TheWorld.com (bzs at TheWorld.com)

Prev by Date: Spitballing IoT Security
Next by Date: Spitballing IoT Security
Previous by thread: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
Next by thread: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread