On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:43 -0400, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
<snippity, snippity - irrelevant text, not irrelevant attitude issues>
> The spirit of the RFC is that you could send mail to abuse@domain and
> get in touch with someone. When the RFC was written, the idea that
> someone will monitor this mailbox was reasonable. Today, it is not in
> all cases. So, in that spirit, some orgs have setup auto responders
> telling you how to get in touch with them. In my opinion, this is a
> perfectly reasonable solution that accomplishes the same goal.
Well, there are ways and there are ways. An e-mail that allows a single
reply to confirm an abuse report (avoiding spurious reports/spams) could
be sent to the original reporter. Have a single change needed, varied
with an arbitrary value to avoid mechanical responses, could accomplish
the same thing with less time/effort on the part of the original
reporter.
What we see implemented is really more of an "offload effort from us to
them" solution. That is not contained in the intent of the RFC. So, the
real rant comes not against the RFC intent, but against the
implementation which forces more workload onto a well-intentioned
reporter of abuse.
Sad that so many high-priced folks couldn't do something better when it
is so easy to find better ways that are more "user" (us, not them)
friendly.
> Why you feel like you are too good to communicate them in an
> effective manner is your own issue, not theirs or the RFC.
One hell of an assumption on your part there.
<snip>
MHO
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
