No. They should not. (Nor should they have spam or malware filters, since of course that's one of the things that people will forward as part of their complaints. Anyone using a sensible email client on a sensible platform will of course incur zero risk by handling either of those.) That said, and since abuse mailboxes have come up in the context of the ongoing IoT/DDoS discussion, let me point out that a fair amount of traffic on this list, on mailop, on dns-operations, on outages-discussion, on other lists, consists of queries of the form "how can I contact X about Y?" The traffic exists because X either has never read RFC 2142 or has just ignored it. A *lot* of our collective time has been wasted asking/answering these queries, and no doubt they represent the tip of the iceberg, as many folks don't bother (having found those addresses non-existent) or don't know where to ask. So now: A Rant (albeit a considered one, after two (2) cups of coffee): This is unacceptable. If you don't maintain the basic role addresses and pay attention to what shows up there, you're not a professional. You're not even a competent amateur. Of all the things we have to do, from unsnarling switches to diagnosing psychotic web/mail servers to dealing with WTF-grade announcements, maintaining role addresses is one of the easiest. It's also one of the best things to do, because traffic arriving there is quite often trying to tell you about problems that you have that you really, REALLY ought to be curious about. And in a time when we're all facing myriad threats, and relying on each other to communicate about them and address them in as close to real time as we can manage, it's inexcusable not to have at least the basics in place. (abuse@, hostmaster@, postmaster@, webmaster@, etc. as applicable to the services you provide) Other people are often doing your job for you *for free* and are sharing the results with you: you should be listening. Intently. I've heard all the whining excuses...and I dismiss them: "We get too much traffic @abuse" -- gosh, stop emitting/facilitating so much abuse and so many attacks, it'll decrease. "We can't reply to everything" -- see previous point. And learn how to use a real mail client. "We get too much spam" -- use procmail to bin incoming reports and triage the most likely non-spam ones first. [1] "People send us malware" -- to a very good first approximation, there are no such things as "email viruses". There are "Outlook viruses". Learn how to use a real mail client. "We don't speak language X" -- run it through Google translate, take your best shot at it. Most reports will be in your language anyway. (Note: if you are a multi-mega-million dollar company, then hire abuse and postmaster and hostmaster &etc. staff fluent in multiple languages. This is more important than your on-site massage therapist and gourmet chef.) "We don't have the time/personnel/budget" -- but magically you have the time, personnel, and budget to run an operation that's causing problems for other people. Also you have a market capitalization of $7.65 gazillion dollars and a gym on the second floor, so please spare me this one. "But X isn't doing it either" -- the "we're no worse than anyone else" excuse and subsequent race to the bottom. "You can call us on the phone" -- yeah, at 3 AM your local time, that'll work. Also I'll be dictating the contents of an email message, including the full headers. No, I don't mind trying to explain a hijacked network problem to your front-line support staff who will read their from their script and tell me to reboot the Windows box I've never had. Good use of my time. "We have a web form" -- that lets me paste 500 characters into a tiny box and requires 9 kinds of Javascript and captchas and other crap and doesn't allow me to keep copy of the message and doesn't facilitate a conversation and doesn't even work because my network is on fire (thanks in part to you) while email will at least get queued and retried at intervals. I also appreciate having to figure this out 14 times for 14 different operations rather than being able to just BCC the same message to all of them and get back to trying to put the fire out. Another good use of my time. "Another tired excuse here" -- if you invested the time you spend coming up with excuses into just doing it, you wouldn't be reading this rant. Mail to your role accounts is often coming either from (a) people your operation is attacking/abusing and/or (b) people who are graciously and generously trying to help you, despite (a). You owe them: (1) acknowledgement (2) investigation (3) action, if indicated (4) response/explanation (5) apology, if indicated (6) a thank-you You owe yourself: (7) remedial action to try to forestall a repeat occurrence and thus the need to keep repeating 1-6 ad infinitum This isn't hard. It's not complicated. We all solve problems far more difficult than this six times a day. If you don't do this, then YOU, and YOUR operation, are the problem. You're why we can't have nice things. And finally, if this appeal to basic professionalism and cooperation and responsibility hasn't gotten through, let me try self-interest: You should be doing this anyway because you're going to need other people to do it for you. Maybe not today. But tomorrow or the next day, when you're the target and you're desperately trying to get 37 other operations to see what's happening and stuff a sock in it before your stuff melts down, you're going to need it. And when that day comes, do you want to be thought of as the responsive, helpful, alert entity that helped others...or the blackhole that ignored role account email for years (or didn't even bother to accept it)? As the cooperative professional who discharged your basic responsibility to the Internet or as the worthless parasite who was happy to leech off everyone else's efforts but refused to make any of your own? I maintain role addresses. I pay attention to them. Every operation I've touched this century does the same, even the ones I'm no longer involved with. (And they'd better, because I check up on them, and if one day I find they're not, I will go back and kick their asses individually, thoroughly, AND in alphabetical order...because Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged is my role model.) If you need help: ask. I've done this a bunch of times, and so have other people. None of the solutions are perfect, but they don't have to be. They just have to work. End Rant. For now. More coffee is brewing. ---rsk [1] Procmail makes it pretty easy to winnow a lot of the wheat from the chaff. It's not perfect, but it's functional enough and when it's incrementally refined over time, it can be made to successively approximate the hypothetical "correct". Experience indicates that even if it misses (that is: fails to file some incoming traffic as a legitimate report) that enough other reports about the same problem will be filed correctly making it possible (a) to do steps 1-6 above and (b) improve the procmail rules for next time as part of step 7. The (b) part is important. Every investment in it makes the entire process better and thus reduces future workloads. A rather effective role-account-handling pipeline can be built on a single box using the 'nix OS and MTA of your choice, plus fetchmail, procmail, and Mailman. And a quality mail client: I strongly recommend mutt, as it's lightweight, fast, full-featured, and about as impervious to attack as a mail client can be, which is a good thing when you're handling a lot of known-hostile email. Hint: a procmail ruleset built from the email addresses of everyone who's sent something to nanog, mailop, dns-operations, outages-discussion, etc. over the last five years is a good start. A decent second pass includes the role addresses found in SOA records and the putative/likely role addresses of domains found in the first pass. Yes, that's a lot of procmail rules. Yes, that's what INCLUDERC is for. No, it's not a big deal: I'm running a procmail filter here with nearly 3000 rules *on a laptop* and the performance impact is negligible.