[RFCI-Discuss] abuse@ blackholes and autoreplies.

[Derek J. Balling]

On Oct 24, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Alan Brown wrote:
> That autoreply states that complainants should use a webform and  
> implies
> that abuse@ mail will eventually be read, however the help page also
> linked in the reply makes it clear that abuse complaints are not
> accepted via email.
>
> I put in the submission, considering it a test case. I'm pleased with
> the decision. Are there any simlar instances?

To clarify this a little bit, this is definitely an edge case in its  
wording.

The "early" paragraph would lead you to believe that they're in  
compliance with our "it's ok to suggest more efficient strategies,  
but you have to accept the mail". The verbiage of the early paragraph  
on its own would seem to imply that this is how their system behaves,  
that using the web form will "speed along" your existing complaint.

However, as Alan points point, later on they specifically have as an  
FAQ, paraphrased, "why can't I submit my abuse complaint via e-mail?"  
with a long answer explaining why not, so it's clear that you *can't*  
submit via e-mail, or rather that you can but it will only generate  
an ignorebot response and not actually reach a live human being.

I wouldn't consider this a "test case" by any stretch. It's a very  
odd wording they've chosen (much as the gmail.com wording is odd, but  
at least the Google folks have indicated they're going to work to get  
the wording changed and get back to us... but they assured us that  
theirs *DOES* behave "properly", despite its ambiguous wording).

cheers,
D


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2419 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20061024/35e6f84c/smime.bin