Wednesday, 9. March 2005
Overnight I have two responses to abuse complaints. As abuse desk responses, other than the automatically generated kind which in too many cases include the kind of instruction your grandmother does not need
to extract the embryo juices of the bird by suction are somewhat rare these days, the arrival of
two is remarkable in itself. What is also remarkable is the contrast between the two.
The first is a response from Easynet to a complaint submitted via spamcop less than one hour earlier. I can recall seeing perhaps two or three responses to spamcop complaints over the years and every previous one has contained some kind of counter-complaint along the lines of "that wasn't spam - we have a double opt-in list" or some such baloney. This was a candid apology for a customer's open relay and an account of the measures in place to deal with the issue. Well done Easynet.
The second response comes from Gmail and is to do with
the spam documented here. It is somewhat more equivocal in its tone, choosing not to acknowledge that abuse has taken place but simply to say that they have investigated (or will investigate) whether an AUP violation has occurred. Fair enough. I'm all for privacy and I don't need to know the outcome anyway - I only need to know that some form of response has been initiated.
What puzzles me here is the timing. Two and a half weeks have elapsed since that incident. This suggests one of two things. Either the abuse desk is snowed under by the sheer scale of abuse going on, or it is so rarely called on to do anything that it is only manned part time. I bet it's the latter.
Now, how does Gmail succeed in preventing abuse of its free web mail service, where others so manifestly fail again and again?
Category: Spam miscellanyTechnorati: Spam miscellany