elind Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 There's a real bit of a problem with the way this discussion is going. First of all, what is now AT&T isn't exactly what most people thing it is. The referenced conversation piece about "sending direct to the customer" may or may not mean what it sounds like. The abuse[at]att.net covers a whole lot of territory, not all of it actually managed directly by what is known as AT&T .... There's a whole slew of companies leasing bandwidth and infrastructure from what is called AT&T. For example, an IP address actually managed by MediaCom shows a spam reporting address of abuse[at]att.net ... and in that case, att.net would forward that complaint "direct to their customer" .... mediacom .... This is not "the spammer" .... yet, it definitely fits into the previous description offered. 'General consensus' is probably all over the map. It's been a long time since I've seen or even heard of real retribution from a spam complaint, and I send most of mine out manually, as the SpamCop.net parseing/reporting things doesn't go far enough to make me happy. Like zillions of other people, yes, I've had an address wrapped in a forged From" line and had to work through all that massive load of bad incoming stff, but .. this is hardly seen as a retribution tactic ... so many people never heard of SpamCop.net or knew how to complain about spam to beging with, but thay get hammered by the same spammer abuse scenario .... I was searching for "reports disabled" when I noticed this thread. What is the significance of a reported spam that comes back from spamcop with "reports disabled" for.......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.