Re: Anyone from Verio here?
Actually, looks like A-Z is taken and they span across all of the available servers on EFnet. | a ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (British Virgin Islands) : ircname : diane kruger | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : irc.nac.net (Jews control irc, too!) : idle : 253 hours 4 mins 31 secs (signon: Sun Apr 6 05:32:36 2008) .- -- - | b ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (Internic Network) : ircname : jennifer aniston | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : irc.vel.net (We're so Hollywood) .- -- - | c ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (Samoa) : ircname : herd killing | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : efnet.teleglobe.net (O'er the land of the free the home of the brave) .- -- - | d ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (Samoa) : ircname : kentucky fried chicken | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : irc.nac.net (Jews control irc, too!) : idle : 605 hours 57 mins 7 secs (signon: Sat Mar 22 11:40:25 2008) .- -- - | z ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (unknown) : ircname : diane kruger | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : irc.vel.net (We're so Hollywood) .- -- - .- -- - | u ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (Cocos (Keeling) Islands) : ircname : eva green | channels : @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust | server : irc.nac.net (Jews control irc, too!) : idle : 252 hours 55 mins 29 secs (signon: Sun Apr 6 05:42:14 2008) Jake Matthews wroteth on 4/16/2008 3:28 PM: I've sent repeated emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/com/*, no response yet. There is an IRC DDoS bot on EFnet actively attacking users - and has been for quite a while, as you can see from the signon date. I am one of those being hit - any idea how to take care of it? g is [EMAIL PROTECTED] * sharon stone g on @#tcp @#ping @#nsa.gov @#london @#jupe @#dust g using irc.wh.verio.net ooh omnipotence. mm yes gotta get me some of that. g actually using host 81.19.98.235 g has been idle 2mins 12secs, signed on Thu Apr 03 23:53:18 -- Steve Ryan Master Solvinator [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: 541*.* 773*.* 5000 Fax: 541*.* 535*.* 7599 288 S Pacific Hwy Talent, OR 97540
Re: Problems sending mail to yahoo?
I work for an ISP that seems to have the same exact problem. We're not even that large of an ISP, 5k customers maybe. We are not a SPAM haven either. We've tried to work with Yahoo! also and have gotten nowhere. If you find anything out on how to deal with it, let me know. I'll update you if I or my Systems guys find out more but it's been going on for a couple weeks and I don't see an end in sight. Regards, Steve InfoStructure Barry Shein wroteth on 4/10/2008 10:30 AM: Is it just us or are there general problems with sending email to yahoo in the past few weeks? Our queues to them are backed up though they drain slowly. They frequently return: 421 4.7.0 [TS01] Messages from MAILSERVERIP temporarily deferred due to user complaints - 4.16.55.1; see http://postmaster.yahoo.com/421-ts01.html (where MAILSERVERIP is one of our mail server ip addresses) Yes I followed the link and filled out the form but after several days no response or change. Despite the wording of their message we're not aware of any cause for user complaints. For example if there were a spam leak you'd expect to see complaints in general to postmaster, abuse, etc. None we're aware of. We host quite a few mailing lists and it seems like whatever they're using is being touched off by the volume of (legitimate) mailing list traffic. I'm automatically moving all their email to a slower delivery queue to see if that helps. Just wondering if this was a widespread problem or are we just so blessed, and any insights into what's going on over there. -- Steve Ryan Master Solvinator [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: 541*.* 773*.* 5000 Fax: 541*.* 535*.* 7599 288 S Pacific Hwy Talent, OR 97540
Re: Routing Loop
I see this at 9:10pm PST: traceroute uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke traceroute to uu-194-009-082-001.uunet.co.ke (194.9.82.1), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 64-192-2-193.static.unwiredbb.com (64.192.2.193) 14 ms 15 ms 14 ms 2 64-192-0-253.static.unwiredbb.com (64.192.0.253) 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 3 so-5-3.ipcolo1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (4.78.240.37) 19 ms 28 ms 25 ms 4 so-6-1-0.mp2.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net (4.68.96.145) 25 ms 20 ms 21 ms 5 as-0-0.bbr1.London1.Level3.net (4.68.128.109) 157 ms 157 ms ae-1-0.bbr2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.57) 158 ms 6 * ae-14-55.car3.London1.Level3.net (4.68.116.145) 448 ms 289 ms 7 195.50.113.18 (195.50.113.18) 231 ms 318 ms 231 ms 8 217.194.157.226 (217.194.157.226) 754 ms 753 ms 746 ms 9 217.194.157.225 (217.194.157.225) 755 ms 735 ms 730 ms 10 fe2-0-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.245) 758 ms 744 ms 792 ms 11 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 772 ms 764 ms 753 ms 12 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 736 ms 742 ms 776 ms 13 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 745 ms 752 ms 747 ms 14 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 746 ms 735 ms 758 ms 15 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 749 ms 740 ms 753 ms 16 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 746 ms 737 ms 757 ms 17 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 740 ms 741 ms 738 ms 18 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 746 ms 742 ms 737 ms 19 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 753 ms 771 ms 744 ms 20 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 735 ms 763 ms 738 ms 21 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 779 ms 742 ms 819 ms 22 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 753 ms 768 ms 738 ms 23 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 764 ms 749 ms 745 ms 24 ge0-1-br.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.253) 766 ms 760 ms 761 ms 25 ge0-2-pdsn.nbo.infinet.co.ke (41.207.64.254) 746 ms 743 ms 808 ms 26 Bill Stewart wroteth on 3/15/2008 9:01 PM: 7018 is still seeing announcements from 6461, and the Oregon Routeviews server route-views.routeviews.org also sees many announcements from different ISPs seeing it announced from 6461. The whois entry for Above.net lists the NOC as RTechHandle: NOC41-ORG-ARIN RTechName: AboveNet NOC RTechPhone: +1-877-479-7378 RTechEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Felix Bako [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to NANOG Hello, Guyz please try to reach my network 194.9.82.0/24 from your networks. Am seeeing routing loops from several looking glasses. above.net, Alameda.net. but from traceroute.eu. the block comes down ok. Kindly anyone assist. -- Best Regards, Felix Bako Network Engineer Africa Online, Kenya Tel: +254 (20) 27 92 000 Fax: +254 (20) 27 100 10 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aim:felixbako
Charter.com DNS Administrator
Anyone know how one would get a hold of a Charter.com DNS Administrator? Surely cannot find it on their site. Nobody I have emailed @charter has responded and it's seriously impacting a mutual customers ability to send email back and forth. I'd surely appreciate having from a Charter contact. Kind regards, Steve
Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
Or it was a minor oversight and you're all pissing and moaning over nothing? That's a thought too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wroteth on 11/20/2007 11:42 AM: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently does not care to hear about it. Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting ongoing support costs and loss of paying customers into what economists call externalities (in other words, they make the decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made).
Re: Getting DSL at your datacenter for OOB
I don't understand why stand alone (naked) DSL is so hard to get in non-Qwest territory. Qwest will provision one no questions asked or needed. Alex Pilosov wroteth on 11/7/2007 11:15 PM: On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, David Ulevitch wrote: We had a great experience doing this with Sonic.net at PAIX in Palo Alto but have had no success at our other sites. (Sonic.net isn't a national DSL provider) Has anyone found providers who can provision DSL circuits at: EQNX ASH, the MMR at 111 8th, and the Westin in Seattle? Speakeasy, after trying valiantly, finally just gave up saying they just couldn't make it happen. It's not rocket science. You order POTS line from the LEC. Then you order DSL from your favorite shared-line DSL provider on that POTS line. Trying to get non-lineshared-dsl might be a challenge. However, I recommend POTS + DSL, for additional OOB-ness, you can plug your DSL modem into the OOB ethernet and your analog modem into OOB serial network. fwiw, we are providing dsl to 111 8th MMR, the one running the free wifi there :) -alex [not posting as mlc anything]
Re: 240/4 (MLC NOTE)
Did you all miss this post? Thanks. Alex Pilosov wroteth on 10/18/2007 3:26 PM: Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end. By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not contributing to signal. I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't have something new (not listed here) to say, can you please avoid posting to this thread? If you disagree with me, please take it to nanog-futures. Summary of arguments: In favor of experimental use only: Alain Durand: at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network In favor of private use: Randy Bush: if it works for you, why mark it experimental Dillon: why shouldn't people use it if they can In favor of no use at all: Joe Greco: it doesn't work now (today) on current-generation OSes, there is no chance to get it to work in any shape of form by the time v4 space is exhausted. Steve Wilcox: it will never work Mixed: Daniel Senie: Allocate some as private, reserve rest as 'allocatable' once vendors get the gear fixed to accomodate those who use as private Additional points: David Ulevitch: If it is ever designated rfc1918, it cannot ever become public. Many: It will buy us some time before v4 address space is exhausted, and much less painful than v6 deployment Many: Old gear cannot be v6-enabled, but it can be 240-enabled Dillon: This is not our decision, this is IETF/IANA decision. -alex [mlc chair]
Re: wanted: offshore hosting
Uh, Australia? Joe Abley wroteth on 10/9/2007 1:09 PM: On 9-Oct-2007, at 1553, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I'd like to rent a box somewhere outside of the US, for geographic redundancy and other reasons. [...] I'd prefer if they spoke English, but weren't in the UK or US. I could deal with it if they only spoke Spanish. Lots of options in Canada :-) Or is that not far away enough for you? Joe
Re: Carrier outage?
I suppose it depends on the 'type' of outage and the type of traffic the voice conferencing utilizes. If it's some strange off the wall protocol or something, I suppose it would have only affected a small portion of people and if it happened on a carrier like Verizon or Qwest or something, I suppose they fit the bill for 'major carrier.' Although I would agree, I would demand answers too but they may be hard to get depending on circumstances. Douglas K. Fischer wroteth on 9/7/2007 3:43 PM: One of our voice conferencing vendors had an significant outage last week, and pinned the blame on a major US carrier outage that affected telco resources throughout the United States. Any way to independently corroborate this claim? I would imagine news of such a major carrier outage would have reached this or another operator's group (and I didn't see anything on this list about one). I'm not saying they're lying, but I like to check out such claims to ensure my vendors are being honest and up front and not trying to pass the buck. Naturally the vendor did not say _which_ carrier had the outage. Any info or guidance as to where I should be looking for info? Many thanks, Doug
Re: Verizon was Re: Netops list
I hate suggesting to a customer plugging in a computer straight to the DSL modem because a lot of times, especially at a business location, it's difficult. However, 9 times out of 10 if you put a little effort into finding the DSL modem, it's usually not 'too difficult' to then unplug the cable and then plug a cable from the modem into a laptop. If it's so difficult you can't do this, whoever placed the modem there to begin with ought to have their ass kicked. Steve Sobol wroteth on 3/28/2007 3:57 PM: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jared Mauch wrote: I need to rewrite the code for it to kill off various service spammers. It'd be nice if I didn't have to blacklist some lame french isp subnet for being infected with these owned/botted hosts. It may not be up to date due to this. Perhaps i'll find some time in the near future to work on this instead of bowling on the wii ;) Well, in that case, if anyone is reading from Verizon... I have serious routing issues from a Verizon Business DSL line in Roslyn, NY to a client's corporate office in San Diego. Lots of timeouts and horrendous reply times, some close to 500ms. The delays all seem to be within Verizon's network (verizon-gni.net). Verizon Online will not open a routing ticket for me without requiring the client to tear down their current setup just to plug a computer directly into the DSL. A few VOL techies have confirmed that there seems to be a routing problem, not a DSL problem (duh, the circuit is fine, they have no issues getting to most Internet sites) but if they don't follow the stated policy they risk getting fired. I'm just trying to escalate to someone who won't require me to run a battery of tests on a DSL circuit that I know to be working properly. Getting access to the DSL modem and plugging a computer in, due to the layout of the Roslyn location, is not practical at all. Thanks in advance.
Re: Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by federal law.
Typical SORBS behavior. While this guy can demand all he wants, doesn't mean he will get what he wants or that he's right or wrong. Personally, we gave up using SORBS because of it's very high false-positive ratio and we got tired of hearing customers who were upset because they didn't get their airline tickets, hotel reservations, or someone in the family was hurt and they missed the email. Fact of the matter is, whether Yahoo! has an SMTP server that 'is spewing SPAM according to SORBS..' or not, blanket screwing over everyone else in the same range which SORBS does -- is crap. Customers found it to be crap and I got tired of justifying it. Very hard to justify when someone mails a customer and 50 other people and only *my* customers were rejected due to SORBS. Ditched SORBS and the customers couldn't be happier. If I were this guy, I wouldn't care. I'd complain to anyone sending him a SORBS failure about all the other *important* mail they're missing and prevent their SORBS usage and educate them the harm SORBS is doing. Thanks for the OT post though. It gave me my chance to RANT. Regards, SR Matthew Sullivan wroteth on 3/15/2007 2:28 PM: Could be considered off-topic because it is humor. I guess a lot of US network operators are going to have to change their DNS entries because apparently the rDNS policies are now set by federal law. http://www.au.sorbs.net/~matthew/funny/rDNS-set-by-federal-law.txt Regards, Mat
Re: Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by federal law.
Nothing is wrong with what he posted. The guy is a moron. However, I was taking my 15 min of fame to jab at SORBS policy of listing people on their respective lists. It's dysfunctional and broken, but that again is just my opinion. Oh and, of course publicly humiliating the guy is certainly not that cool. However, while it's not really above me to do the same, he could have removed the email address so spammers aren't adding to that guys list of problems. Anyway, don't mind me. I just wanted to add to the off-topic drivel Mat posted since I can't stand SORBS. : Steve Sobol wroteth on 3/15/2007 7:31 PM: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, S. Ryan wrote: Typical SORBS behavior. While this guy can demand all he wants, doesn't mean he will get what he wants or that he's right or wrong. What's wrong with what Mat posted? The guy claiming DNS is regulated by federal law is an idiot. Not that I always agree with what Mat says, but the guy's claims are obviously and patently false. The claims, in fact, are so ridiculous that I tend to think he's making them to weasel out of solving the problem that got him listed in the first place. People doing that *deserve* to be publically ridiculed. When I talk to Mat I generally have no problems having a civil and productive discussion with him. But I don't start out with an attitude, and I don't cook up absurd stories to try to get out of fixing my spam problem. (Not that I have one, but if I did, I'd not try to weasel out of fixing it.) Personally, we gave up using SORBS because of it's very high false-positive ratio YMMV; at $DAYJOB we don't seem to have the same problem. Disclaimer: My opinions, not my boss's, etc.
Re: Microsoft Corporate Postmaster Contact?
I don't think it should ever be acceptable to have to 'sign up' to report a security/network problem. Steve Sobol wroteth on 12/18/2006 3:10 PM: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Jay Stewart wrote: This may not be much of a help, but can be a good resource for data when dealing with mail issues regarding MS. https://postmaster.live.com/snds/index.aspx Of course, you need a Valid MSN passport for registration. . . . . sigh. . sigh...? Sign up for a free Windows Live Mail (Hotmail) account, and bingo, you have a Passport login. Hardly a show-stopper.
Comcast mail folks
Any Comcast mail admins around? If they could kindly contact me off list I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks!
Charter.net contact?
Any Charter.net mail admins around? I'd love to hear from one. Regards, Steve
Re: Yahoo! Mail Servers
I've filled it out and have yet to hear back as well. chuck goolsbee wroteth on 11/9/2006 2:46 PM: At 5:49 PM -0800 11/5/06, chuck goolsbee wrote: At 12:29 PM -0800 11/4/06, Dave Mitchell wrote: number of emails and being traffic shaped. To have your legitimate mailservers added to a white list, please refer to the following info. http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html I've filled in the form. And I'm pretty sure this is the second or third time I've done so. -dave p.s. Chuck, must be 'game on' in hell twice since Petach and I both work for Yahoo. :) I have my whistle skates, but won't drop the puck until my yahoo.com message backlogs sink to single digits, and/or a human being from yahoo!mail contacts me directly via the methods I outlined in the above referenced form. Just to follow up, six days has passed and other than one auto-reply promising: At 10:38 PM -0800 11/4/06, Yahoo! Customer Support wrote: Thank you for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care to answer your question. A support representative will get back to you within 48 hours regarding your issue. I haven't heard a peep from any human being at Yahoo. Has anyone else that filled in the placeb^X^X^X^X form heard back from them? Beuller? --chuck
mac.com contacts?
Any mac.com folks around? Please drop me a note. Thank you.
Any aspadmin.com people here?
Any aspadmin.com mail folks on here? Please contact me offlist. It's regarding one of your MX's. Many thanks, SR
Earthlink people? - 207.69.195.103
Any Earthlink mail admins around? This server - 207.69.195.103 - has been on SORBS for some time now and I can't get any response from normal channels at Earthlink. A lot of your customers end up using that outgoing mail server and anyone that uses SORBS obviously may be blocking them.. and your customers are frustrated as well as mine that can't receive mail due to your SORBS listing. Thank you, SR
Re: Outages mailing list
You're right, it'll probably never happen. I do find when I am upfront and honest with our customers, they enjoy it and act far less irritated than giving them what the company would prefer and that is 'we're down, sorry, it'll be down for xx amount of time..' Personally, if my ISP had issues and they were up front with me coupled with the fact I know shit happens, it wouldn't really bother me. If they said 'we'll be back up in x minutes..' I might start to think they just are incompetent. Honesty goes a long ways. I know of a few local ISP's, Eskimo North being one of them that maintains an outage list and their customers love it. The ISP I work at doesn't do this. You get a standard mundane answer, unless I answer the phone. : Regards, SR Scott Weeks wroteth on 9/29/2006 5:04 PM: - Original Message Follows - From: virendra rode // [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scott Weeks wrote: - Original Message Follows - From: virendra rode // [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ideally (if I have better luck) I would like to get providers to direct outage notices to this list. All that That's not going to happen. Providers don't want that stuff public. Makes 'em look bad... I'm sure they love FCC for that :-) It depends on what type of providers you're talking about. Even with ILECs, there're regulated (FCC reportable) and unregulated (not required to report to the FCC) services. You'll never get providers to say to your list, Yep, we had problems. Here's the list of them. It'll never happen. ..you may I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one :-) Maybe if I had a beer I'd be a dreamer and that'd make sense... scott
Re: Outages mailing list
That's another debate entirely. Last I checked, the mail I get in my inbox I consider mine and thus, I will do as I please with it. Including re-posting if I want. : Hmm.. I say forward it along! Rick Kunkel wroteth on 9/29/2006 1:45 PM: I thought about cutting and pasting verbatim the notification I got from InterNAP, but then noticed the The contents of this email message are confidential and proprietary blurb at the end, and thought better of it, even though they weren't to blame... Rick On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Scott Weeks wrote: - Original Message Follows - From: virendra rode // [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ideally (if I have better luck) I would like to get providers to direct outage notices to this list. All that That's not going to happen. Providers don't want that stuff public. Makes 'em look bad... scott
Re: comast email issues, who else has them?
Christopher L. Morrow wroteth on 9/6/2006 5:11 PM: On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Because Comcast's tools are broken and when other mail admins or even their own customers call them on it, they're not even competent enough to understand the complaint and refuse to escalate? I hate to say this, and get involved in the melee, but... Perhaps the problem is that for an average customer service employee there are 1000 calls about something meaningless and not-wrong and only 1 call about something truly wrong? So escalating every problem that seems even half baked isn't an option? You're probably right. However, if someone called my place of employment (a small local ISP) and complained followed by quite a few others, I would at least escalate the issue so someone higher than me can check out logs, connectivity, etc.. things I don't have access too to make sure there isn't a problem. What is unfortunate is the fact that this generally doesn't happen. You get lots of calls and Tier I does the obvious and it works and works on those others that call that the issue must be them and it's case closed and nothing gets escalated. It's even worse of the problem gets seemingly solved and the customer doesn't call back for quite a while.. gives the appearance all is well even though it truly is not. Perhaps some of the comcast folks reading might take a better/harder look at their customer service tickets and do a 'better' job (note I'm not even half of a comcast customer so I'm not sure that there even IS a problem...) on this issue? Most ISP's could do a better job. The last ISP I worked at utilized RT for their support. I think a strong ticketing system and using that ticketing system to it's full potential would go a long way in getting things solved faster as well as being able to see trends that could then get escalated without lots of pissed off people having to call and bitch whine and moan before escalation happens. You could easily see an issue with a properly setup ticketing system such as RT. In general blaming the first level tech for something isn't going to get anyone anywhere near a solution. Perhaps Sean's actually saying: The right tool is to use another provider? even though Steven's thought is that the 'other provider' is in the same boat of clue :( ... good point. It may not even be the techs fault on any tier level. It might be company policy, unfortunately.
Re: SORBS Contact
Even worse if your ISP uses it and demands you ask the 'offender' to get 'themselves' removed. Michael Nicks wroteth on 8/8/2006 7:27 AM: Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good and bad. -Michael Brian Boles wrote: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website (no action on tickets opened). 64.79.128.0/20 http://64.79.128.0/20 Brian Boles [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SORBS Contact
Someone is providing you transit.. what gives? :) Matthew Sullivan wroteth on 8/8/2006 4:33 PM: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Michael Nicks wrote: Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good and bad. Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and providing transit to known criminal organisations. / Mat
noc11.net abuse contact
Nothing on their website and their abuse / [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be refusing mail. Anyone from noc11.net on this list? If so, please hit me off list. Thank you.
Qwest Long Distance Network
Perhaps not the best place to ask, but I thought I would try. Anyone know or have more information on the Qwest 14-State LD Network Outage? It's been going on for the better part of this morning. At times, can not call LD from the Qwest network, nor can anyone call into the Qwest network.
