Should abuse mailboxes have quotas?

[Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>]

For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
"mailbox exceeds quota".  I take this to mean that there isn't someone
actively reading, acting on, and deleting e-mail from abuse@<whomever>.

So my new rule is this:  bounce an abuse e-mail message, sent to an
abuse address announced for the netrange, and the ENTIRE NETRANGE gets
put in my "reject forever" firewall.  I've ask all my customers about
this action, and all agree that it's reasonable, because an
administration with an active abuse desk shouldn't ever have their abuse
mailbox overflow.  (Especially in this day of terabyte disks.)

Or they need more people on their abuse desk.

Or they need to eliminate the problem that generates so many abuse
e-mails that it fills up their should-be-enormous mail queue.

I'm tired of blatantly uncaring administrations.