ARF (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt>, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6650.txt) and X-ARF (http://www.x-arf.org/index.html <http://www.x-arf.org/index.html>) are used quite alot and many, like Yahoo, only accept ARF reports on abusive emails. you might want to read MAAWG’s BCP: https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reportin... <https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reporting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf> Tom
On Dec 25, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net> wrote:
Just an off the cuff thought but if the format of the abuse messages could be standardized so handling them would be semi-automated somewhat like ACNS notices, it might improve response.
Maybe such a format already exists and just isn't widely used.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 25, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote:
why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse reports, normal slow speed network abuse is tolerated, but not high speed deliberate abuse albeit compromised machines
This is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most ISPs do not respond to abuse reports.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se