In my experience, this is something you need to live with, and not filter anything in the spam folder.
Why? Because it can be real spam (and then you can use the abuse contact of the resource-holder for the addresses where the spam is coming from), when you report abuse cases, to facilitate the work of the involved parties, you should be allowed to attach or include headers, logs, etc. that probe that it is an abuse (from your perspective).
If you filter that, then you will not receive many abuse reports …
For example, some abuse mailboxes filter specific URLs or domains. If the header contains such domain, how are you going to be able to send that?
I use fail2ban and block automatically specific IP addresses or ranges once the abuse has been reported and keeps repeating. Depending on the frequency of the repetitions, how many, etc., etc., I could increase automatically from a few hours to days or weeks the banning.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 18/2/21 13:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> escribió:
Hi aa-wg,
For some context, today and yesterday I have been receiving spam in the form of fake abuse notices to my abuse contact email address.
Is there a generally accepted standard for when it's okay to block an address or a prefix from emailing your abuse contact?
I consider being able to contact the abuse email address of a network a rather important function, so I prefer not to block it.
But also as I have more relaxed spam filters for the abuse contact to make sure nothing gets lost, it feels like blocking the address/prefix is my only option other than manually filtering through these emails (10 so far in total, today and yesterday).
So back to the question, is there a generally accepted point at which blocking an address/prefix is fine?
Thanks,
-Cynthia