Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread chuck goolsbee
(I'm sure many readers of the list know *that* feeling - you found and fixed the problem before the first complaint arrives, but you still get deluged by more complaints for another week or so...) Or another 6 months from AOL ;-] No... for AOL add 6 MORE months + three days

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Paul Ferguson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in >> the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. F

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Sean Donelan
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do not contact Cox Communications, contact the block list administrators.) An unfort

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Chris Owen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I'm sure many readers of the list know *that* feeling - you found and fixed the problem before the first complaint arrives, but you still get deluged by more complaints for another week or

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:50 EST, "Raymond L. Corbin" said: > Heh better then my all time favorite was the "mailbox is full" reply > from an abuse@ address for an ISP based in Nigeria who had a few servers > trying to open umpteen fraud accounts :D I've seen my share of 800-pound gorillas (we're t

RE: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Raymond L. Corbin
Heh better then my all time favorite was the "mailbox is full" reply from an abuse@ address for an ISP based in Nigeria who had a few servers trying to open umpteen fraud accounts :D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Martin Hannigan
On Nov 20, 2007 2:21 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ snip ] > - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the > content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resol

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Joe Greco
> Or it was a minor oversight and you're all pissing and moaning over nothing? > > That's a thought too. Pretty much all of network operations is "pissing and moaning over nothing," if you wish to consider it such. Some of us actually care. In any case, I believe that I've found the Cox abuse

Re: [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Martin Hannigan
On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 c

[admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread S. Ryan
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 originat

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
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 abo

unwise filtering policy from cox.net

2007-11-20 Thread goemon
if anyone from cox.net is reading... - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do not contact Cox Communica

Reflection Attack- 69.80.239.50

2007-11-20 Thread mack
I apologize if this is off topic. Currently the IP 69.80.239.50 is the victim of a reflection attack. Many operators may be seeing what appears to be a syn attack generated by this IP. These are actually spoofed packet hitting an open port designed to generate a syn-ack packet at the victim ser

Re: Network Solutions domain transfer lock policy?

2007-11-20 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:59:11PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote: > > I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact change > to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for 60 days. You might want to ask them, but I'd bet lunch this is an anti-domain-theft policy.