[anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hal ponton
hal at buzcom.net
Fri Mar 31 10:54:02 CEST 2017
Sorry didn't cc in the list, Regards, Hal > Hal ponton <mailto:hal at buzcom.net> > 31 March 2017 at 09:53 > Andre, > > The issue I see with two contacts (emergency and standard) is that > everyone will email the emergency contact. > > I fully agree that the response required for 1 spam email vs 10000 > emails is vastly different, however, if someone wants a response they > will email the account they think they'd get the fastest / best > response from. It's just human nature. > > Whilst at first non-emergency complaints will be ignored, it will get > to a "boy who cried wolf" situation where the amount of non-emergency > emails vastly outweighs the emergency emails. To the point where the > organisation will just treat the emergency mailbox the same as the > current abuse mailbox. > > You would need some disincentive to email the emergency mailbox. Like > on a train where if you pull the emergency handle without there being > an emergency you get a fine. I'm not advocating a fine here, just > something similar to try and regulate emails coming into the emergency > mailbox. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20170331/fa1a4497/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]