[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Wed Jul 25 10:14:21 CEST 2012
On Tue 24/Jul/2012 20:39:44 +0200 Reza Farzan wrote: > To complement what Alessandro said, it is good that RFC 6650 splits > abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones, even > though it may confuse common users. > > The "solicited" should be reserved for Spam Cop, and other > administrators who are trying to report Abuse/Spam activities to a > network. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. "Solicited", at least in the sense of RFC 6650, refers to private agreements, e.g. like the one you apply for at http://postmaster.aol.com/SupportRequest.FBL.php . The FBL email address involved in the agreement can be dedicated. Perhaps RFC 6650 could have chosen a better term, but the definition it gives is clear enough: The original, and still by far the most common, application of [RFC5965] is when two mail systems make a private agreement to exchange abuse reports -- usually reports due to recipients manually reporting messages as spam. We refer to these as solicited reports. > The "unsolicited" channel could be like a web form that encourages > users to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network like the one > that GoDaddy has: > https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/Abuse/SpamReport.aspx?ci=22420. Hm... yes. Although explicitly asking for reports looks very much like soliciting them, that form is more similar to an abuse-mailbox published in its own peculiar way, than to an FBL. > This way, the "solicited" channel (abuse at domain-name.com) would > remain free of unsolicited inquiries, and network administrators > could mange it more efficiently and process legitimate reports > promptly. Using an FBL address different from abuse at domain-name.com is a good way to keep it free from other stuff.