On 2017-04-10 19:24:39 (+0000), Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
Philip Paeps <phi...@trouble.is> wrote:
On 2017-04-10 19:01:34 (+0000), Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
Philip Paeps <phi...@trouble.is> wrote:
On 2017-04-10 17:15:38 (+0000), Michael Wise via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>
wrote:
And a way to establish contacts automatically.
What's wrong with the well-known abuse@ address? Or postmaster@?
You're missing the larger issue of having abuse and postmaster flooded with
spam.
[...]
In a better world, where networks have their users under control, we
wouldn't have to forward so much mail to abuse@. But in the imperfect world
we live in, "network incapable of dealing with abuse reports" works pretty
well as a filter for networks I don't want to receive mail from.
Messages like "does anyone know how to get in touch with network X" should
be the exception rather than the rule. The fact that there's not a lot more
traffic on this list means it's probably working reasonably well?
There certainly needs to be operator to operator contact.
I agree with that. But...
But unless the pipes are secured, which the idea of dedicated
+addresses for both sender and recipient accomplishes at a light-weight
level ...
My view is that operator to operator contact should be the exception
rather than the rule. Under normal circumstances robots deal with
whatever gets sent to abuse@ and postmaster@. They can acknowledge this
with an auto-reply that indicates how one can attract the attention of
human operators.
Again under normal circumstances, attracting the attention of humans
will have to happen rarely enough. Humans' attention is actually
attracted when someone follows the instructions in the auto-reply.
When that fails ... operators reach out on mailop@ (or exercise their
networks in other ways). But that should really not happen often.
If that does have to happen often and/or if it turns out that the robots
never (or barely ever) work and the humans are overwhelmed, the network
has a larger problem with its users and should not be surprised that
other networks refuse to accept their email.
Separating the wheat from the chaff will get way out of hand ...
instantly.
Maybe I'm just not cynical enough. :) Or I have too much faith in
robots.
Philip
--
Philip Paeps
Senior Reality Engineer
Ministry of Information
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
