On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:59 AM, peter h wrote:

> This would send the wrong signal to the community ( that we only deal with the easy cases
> and with less and less resources)

Yes, I agree. And perhaps you'll agree with me that ignoring the complaints -- as many do today -- sends an even more powerful signal that ISPs are getting progressively better at detecting and responding to :-)

> Spam has been the plague that it is since ISP's have ignored abuse reports about their
> customers. The way to reduce work with abuse reports is NOT to ignore some of them ( or
> make life easier for the abuse staff) but to reduce the amount of abuse originating from
> it's own adresses.
>
> Blacklisting is the only thing that really bites ignorant ISP's, and that's what happens.

I agree. Incompetent (or inactive) ISPs (or ESPs) will get blacklisted regardless of the signaling they send, because the abuse won't stop and the rest of the 'net will get tired of dealing with that.

Still, I think there's nothing inherently wrong about having a channel for machine-to-machine (or bulk) reports vs a human-to-human lane. In fact, I believe we can all win as a community if that were an option. Having a broken ISP state "I cannot receive bulk abuse reports" simply could save resources to the complaint-senders, who might then decide to simply escalate to blacklisting faster.

Best regards

-lem