Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Thank you, I wasn't aware, and it will be corrected (doesn't say
3-5hours still so I'd love to find that one).
There is this text I see, which seems to disagree with the robot's
behavior in my case (from the
Bill Weiss wrote:
Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100:
Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text.
On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read:
This will route any created ticket to the robot handler which will
Kevin Stange wrote:
On 12/14/2009 04:32 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
snip
I'm a robot writing you on behalf of the SORBS' admins. The reason
you're getting this automated response, is our desire to provide you
with consistent and fast responses. I'm prepared to correctly analyze
most of the
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Bill Weiss wrote:
Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM
+0100:
Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text.
On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read:
This will route any
William wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps people wouldn't have to email you if the robot actually did what
it said it was going to do. Your website promises that the robot will
get things delisted out of the DUHL zone in 3 to 5 hours.
Please feel free to show me *any* SORBS webpage that says
Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100:
William wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps people wouldn't have to email you if the robot actually did what
it said it was going to do. Your website promises that the robot will
get things delisted out of the DUHL zone in 3 to 5
On 12/14/2009 04:32 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
snip
I'm a robot writing you on behalf of the SORBS' admins. The reason
you're getting this automated response, is our desire to provide you
with consistent and fast responses. I'm prepared to correctly analyze
most of the cases appearing in the
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 11:32 +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Read the last paragraph again.. will be submitted for delisting .. not
has been delisted and it will take 3-5 hours to propagate... I have to
process all removals manually after the robot because the robot does get
it wrong, and
John R. Levine wrote:
So write to her from a gmail account. APEWS is pretty kooky, and I'm
kind of surprised if SORBS is using it.
We use ASPEWS not APEWS (there is a vast cookiness difference).
Shells
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was always
under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or you are
moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts. The ticket engine is web based and has
an interface to
John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses ASPEWS,
Guess I'm a
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was
always under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or
you are moved to the back of the line with SORBS.
That is correct on all counts.
Oh and to re-iterate a point
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
Name: www.googleadservices.com
Address: 67.210.14.113
That is Cernal, and it is hosted in Russia now.
not unless 'russia' moved a whole lot closer to 'ashburn,va' in the
last little while (or wormhole network
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:02 +0100, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
You should still be able to submit a ticket to SORBS, no? I was
always under the impression that it was open a ticket and wait or
you are moved to the back of the line with
Hi,
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
So it'd be cool if I could you know, talk to someone who has involvement
with that, because frankly, I do
:36 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?
Hi,
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
So it'd be cool if I could you
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:55 -0800, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Also, the fact that Atrivo is *dead* and this
stuff is still listed means that anyone who gets
those blocks from ARIN next are basically screwed
Why would you say Atrivo is dead?
r...@localhost --- {~} nslookup
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses ASPEWS, it's
hard to see why one would care, but if you
.
From: William Pitcock [neno...@systeminplace.net]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:35 PM
To: Alex Lanstein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:55 -0800, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Also, the fact that Atrivo
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 17:25 -0800, Alex Lanstein wrote:
William Pitcock wrote:
Cernal and Atrivo are two different entities, Atrivo used to host
Cernal, but now they have different hosting arrangements.
I now understand the original point you were trying to make about Atrivo. I
disagree
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses
So write to her from a gmail account. APEWS is pretty kooky, and I'm kind
of surprised if SORBS is using it.
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall
William Pitcock wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
involved, nor the provider that belongs to.
Since nobody but the occasional
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:48:35 -0800
Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
William Pitcock wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote:
ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20
24 matches
Mail list logo
