[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Wed Jul 25 15:28:04 CEST 2012
On Wed 25/Jul/2012 14:03:34 +0200 Tobias Knecht wrote: > > [...] But it does not make any sense to publish this dedicated > address in whois. Yup. Neither whois nor any other publicly accessible place... >> OTOH, asking for the reporter's intervention lets them know that you >> received their complaint and are doing something about it. > > I'm not 100% sure if I completely understood what you want to say with > that. If we have the case of 2 email addresses and an reporter sends > them to the by receiver subjectively wrong address and the receiver > contacts the reporter to tell him to send it to another address this > shows that he is doing something about it? If it's that what you meant > I can't follow this logic. The receiver could tell the sender to send > it to another address which is dev-nulled (which the receiver will > obviously not mention). No, I didn't mean that. After a reporter sent a complaint to my only abuse-mailbox address, I can set up a bin to handle further reports of the same kind. Rather than relying on software to discriminate reports, I can set up a new, dedicated address and connect it to that bin directly. Then, I'd ask the reporter to please send further reports to such address. That assumes they will store my data, recognize "my" mail, and send any related complaints straightaway. They get better automation, as well as I. In addition, we will have exchanged our contacts during the intercourse, and sketched an outline of reciprocal trust.