[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports

On 24/07/2012 8:34 AM, Luis Muñoz wrote:
>
>
> The automated reports tend to vastly outnumber the manual reports, which also mix with the loads of spam that are (purposely?) pointed at the abuse contacts. This complicates the task of sifting through the mail flow to direct the complaints into their proper bins for processing. There's also the case of those that don't care about abuse originating from their resources. Those are likely to simply devnull their abuse complaint flow just as they have been doing up until now.
If I may, from my perspective as an 'amateur' SPAM reporter 
of all the ends up in my mailbox,
I don't see what difference an additional 
"auto-abuse-mailbox" would make versus a regular abuse-mailbox.

The receivers would still have to do the same work - now on 
two mail boxes, rather just than one,
because for the second 'auto' mailbox to be useful would 
still depend on everyone's goodwill and
cooperation which is exactly what you won't be able to 
depend on in the world of SPAM :-(
>
> 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). The automated, high volume generators can decide not to waste resources with entities that do not have the right objects setup (ie, if there's not an auto-abuse-mailbox, do not generate the report) and the entities that are not prepared to deal with automated reports, could signal that to the community by not defining an auto-abuse-mailbox.
>
> Note that I still support the notion of a mandatory abuse-mailbox where manual complaints can be sent. At least that takes a way a lot of (guess)work out of figuring out where to send the complaint.
>
> Best regards
>
> -lem
Arnold

-- 
Fight Spam - report it with wxSR
http://www.columbinehoney.net/wxSR.shtml