Sentinel
Your abuse desk exists. The question is whether it will hold.
Most ESP abuse programs are built reactively — someone is assigned the shared mailbox, sets up a few rules, and handles what comes in. That works at low volume. It stops working when sending scales, when a major mailbox provider starts asking questions, or when the person who built the process walks out the door.
If complaint handling runs on institutional memory rather than a documented process, if your team is triaging by feel, or if a blocklist operator asked why a client “is still a problem” and the answer was uncomfortable, then you already know the function is not where it needs to be.
That is not an indictment. It is how most abuse programs start. The problem is not that the desk exists in an informal state. The problem is that informal states are invisible until they fail, and they tend to fail at the worst possible time.
This engagement puts a frame around what you have, identifies what is missing, and gives your team a prioritized path to fix it.
What this engagement covers
A ten-business-day assessment of your abuse function’s current state, covering operations, policy, tooling, and external relationships. I examine what you have, identify what is missing or broken, and deliver a written assessment organized by finding category, with each finding ranked by priority and risk. The assessment is accompanied by a buildout roadmap with recommended sequencing, resource requirements, and success criteria for each phase. A one-hour review call is included to walk through findings and answer questions.
What this engagement does not cover
This is an assessment and roadmap engagement. It does not include implementation of recommended changes, drafting of policy documents, or sustained involvement through the build itself. If your organization needs a fractional abuse program lead through the buildout, that is a separate engagement. Findings that carry legal implications (acceptable use policy language, enforcement criteria with contractual dimensions) are noted with a referral to qualified legal counsel.
Who this is for
ESPs and sending platforms with an existing abuse function that has not been formally assessed or documented. The function may be minimal — a shared inbox, a few Spamhaus lookups, someone who handles it alongside other responsibilities — or more developed but uneven, where some areas are well-managed and others have never been documented.
The right indicator is not program size. It is whether your complaint-handling process lives in your documentation or in someone’s head. If you have no written process you could hand to someone new and have them operational within a week, this is the right starting point.
Timeline and what I need from you
Delivered in ten business days from receipt of prerequisite materials.
Before the engagement begins, I’ll ask for four things: your current complaint-handling workflows and any existing documentation, your current acceptable use policy, your FBL enrollment status and any existing blocklist operator correspondence, and a technical and operational contact available for clarifying questions during the ten-day window. Most of that either exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, that’s a finding, not a blocker.
Not sure where your program stands?
A free 30-minute assessment call is the place to find out. If your program is further along than you think, I’ll tell you that too.