[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 15:29:27 CET 2011
I don't remember that incident - but yes, you don't own the larger netblock that was filtered. I, my filters or my team don't make a habit of filtering covering CIDRs unless there's massive amounts of spam spread across multiple subnets in there. And when that happens, I do like to talk to the ISP and ensure that they address those issues before I relax any filters. --srs On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:46 PM, russ at consumer.net <russ at consumer.net> wrote: > > I have dealt with the abuse desk you ran before if you remember me. I tried > to respond to an e-mail from the network you ran and it was blocked. Your > abuse desk told me other people on my netblock were spammers and I was > supposed to go to my hosting provider and somehow make it stop. I had no > idea (or power) to do anything about it and I had no idea what anyone else > on the netblock was doing. When I ask for proof of the claims you never > sent anything or explained further (although you did unblock me). These are > some of the crazy stunts pulled by abuse departments that has no basis in > law or common sense. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]