[anti-abuse-wg] How Not To Ask For A Website to Be taken Down
Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Dec 22 00:33:45 CET 2010
In message <FF4A9252-C4E2-4918-8E27-8EA1D239C97B at blacknight.ie>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote: >Got this earlier today (not to our abuse contact of course .. ) > >Couple of things to note > >Unless you read it a few times it's not easy to work out what the hell they= >are actually asking about I confess that I am utterly baffled by your comment. The message from BofA seemed altogether clear and entirely straightforward and unambiguous to me. What is it, exactly, about that message that caused you to have any difficulty in "working it out"? >If your first language isn't English then I suspect you'll dismiss it as >spam .. .. I know some of my staff did and they supposedly speak English! Again, I am utterly baffled by your comment. Can you explain why anyone would ever dismiss BofA's message to you as spam? I also occasionally send messages to various networks, generally regarding serious ongoing security issues. If I was BofA, and I had to draft an e-mail to your organization, asking you to remove a phishing site from your network, I think I would have phrased the e-mail almost exactly the way that BofA did. And if you were tempted to ignore & trash BofA's notification to you, then I really would like to understand why, because if I can understand that, then perhaps I might also be able to understand why various networks have utterly ignored various messages I have sent, over time, alerting them to, e.g., hacked machines on their respective networks. Regards, rfg P.S. I think that a discussion of the BofA message, and your comments about it, would be quite entierly apropos for this mailing list, because after all, hasn't this WG just been working (struggling?) to finalize/ formalize a proposal to get abuse contact e-mail addresses into all RIPE allocation records? As someone else pointed out, requiring those (abuse) e-mail contacts will really be utterly pointless if the folks on the receiving ends of those e-mail addresses regularly or routinely trash inbound messages sent to those addresses, e.g. because, in their opinions, said messages "look vaguely like spam".