Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'hosting providers'.
I understand that sometimes reports are sent to /dev/null because the abuse@ address has requested they not be sent any longer, but is that not an abdication of their responsibilities? For a hosting company in particular, keeping on top of which systems are sending spam is vital to ensuring the security of their network, since spam most often originates from compromised servers. The abuse@ person should not be permitted to hide from the reports. Is this the reason firstname.lastname@example.org gets /dev/nulled or is it some other reason? And when a network provider has decided to neglect it's obligation to police it's own infrastructure, does that reflect negatively on their reputation?