[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Tue Jul 24 20:22:32 CEST 2012
On Tue 24/Jul/2012 17:34:01 +0200 Luis Muñoz wrote: > I believe that having an optional "auto-abuse-mailbox" object (that > is mandatory to use when present) dealing only with automated > reports, could help anti-abuse operators (both in the report > sending and receiving sides). Let me add one consideration to what Tobias wrote: RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones. Also known as feedback loops, the former can be automated according to the underlying agreement. One can use a different reporting addresses for each subscription. Unsolicited complaints deserve a bit of thought: Who is sending them? Why? When such questions are cleared, the stream of reports from that operator can be directed to the appropriate bin, possibly by negotiating a different address with the report generator. In fact, that is the same as establishing a feedback loop, and it cannot be automated fully for the same reasons why subscriptions to the early kind of feedback loops cannot. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6650#section-5.5
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]