[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Wed Jul 25 10:52:23 CEST 2012
On Wed 25/Jul/2012 08:29:55 +0200 Luis Muñoz wrote: > > I also think that there's value in providing a better mechanism for > the receiver. Receivers who want to do everything through a single > channel, could set the two addresses to the same value. I cannot publish something like "Hey, this is my <a href=...>bulk address</a>; this <a href=...>other one</a> is for my mother-in-law only." Well, I could. But, in Arnold's words, using the right address would still depend on everyone's goodwill... > Receivers who want to action them through separate pipelines, now > will have a way to do that. An alternative is to separate the pipelines for each and every report generator. Good abuse reporters may realize that need. They can set up a full blown abuse-reporting web shop, where senders can login, change reporting address, see statistics, and the like. Much like AOL's FBL, except that they send you an auto-subscribe link on the first abuse they report to you, rather than require you to subscribe beforehand. That way, they can run an FBL even if they are not quite the size of AOL. > Receivers who prefer not to receive bulk abuse reports, can signal > that. It is probably more effective to just redirect the abuse-mailbox to /dev/null.