On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:49:50AM +0200, David Hofstee wrote: > I’m not sure why you cannot have an autoresponder behind the > abuse@/postmaster@ with a link in it, to a ticket, containing > the info sent in the first place. See abuse.io for example.
I got ~2,000 spam mails to our abuse address in the last three months - so about 8,000 a year. I get about one legitimate mail per year. I'm sure that doesn't easily scale when you get to the size of the big mail providers, especially as you're more likely to get spam to that address in the first place. > The rest is just ‘resistance’ in being able to solve issues. I am not saying I agree with not having a proper abuse@ address, I just understand why they might be reluctant to. They certainly shouldn't feed it into a system that blindly responds to what is usually going to be a forged sender. But if you're big enough to host millions of mailboxes, you should also be responsible enough to have staff to run all aspects of the system, which includes standard ways of reporting problems such as abuse@. Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk> _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
