John Hardin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Apr 2014, Matthias Leisi wrote: >> abuse@<easily identifiable, stable and unique domain> should be >> available. >> Wiki and docs are fine, but should not be needed if possible. > > Oh my god, yes! Sites who force you to go through a web page rather than > having a working abuse@ address are saying "we really don't want you to > report abuse to us."
And by "working", this includes "don't reject .eml attachments out of hand" and "don't reject mail as spam". Because a lot of mail reported to an abuse contact will be.... variously spammy and/or malicious. As for processing a message forwarded as an attachment, if *I* can scrape together enough pieces in the right order to automatically detach RFC822-attached email messages from a parent, and extract relay IP and other bits and pieces from the attached message(s), surely a major ESP or hosting provider can hire someone who can do better than I can... > i.e. their abuse@ mailbox. :) Oh, no we can't have *that*. Email support-contact@, or helpdesk@, or take the message apart yourself and paste things in these 15 fields, or paste the message into the body of a new message, but omit this bit and that bit and these other 47,326 bits that will get your report rejected as spam or "potentially malicious content" (well, yes, it was, that's why I'm reporting it!). -kgd
