[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 20:12:15 -0500
In-reply-to: <CAAAwwbU2E5Z_vDqGQkdp5CD=sR7QExds5DEM0WzO72DDg7usmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <CAL9jLabKqygH5yDu01LLZUfx_T5-y_u+d2kWVD08imsThAA-ug@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAAAwwbU2E5Z_vDqGQkdp5CD=sR7QExds5DEM0WzO72DDg7usmg@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry about that, many networks do perform standard filtering on 
messages to Abuse contacts based on DNS RBLs, SPF/DMARC 
policy enforcement, virus scans, etc, and do send a SMTP Reject on 
detected spam or malware. 

I'll disagree, here.  Sure, there are some basic considerations - but some of the major
types of role accounts should have specific exceptions to allow the issues to actually
reach the appropriate party.

References:
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: list at satchell.net (Stephen Satchell)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: goemon at sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis)
- Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
  - From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)

Prev by Date: Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?
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