On 03/30/2011 03:53 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I just stumbled onto this one the other day.
Apparently, Spamhaus has known about this one for THREE MONTHS already:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL98308
It's being routed by AS11730, aka "Circle Internet LTD", a known spam
For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock.
Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate
signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact
customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prove
otherwise.
Randy Rooney
On Thu,
On 03/31/2011 12:12 PM, rr wrote:
For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock.
Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate
signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact
customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prov
In message ,
rr wrote:
>For the record, Integra Telecom did have LOA for said netblock.
>Needless to say LOA was forged on company letterhead with appropriate
>signatures. Once brought to our attention we attempted to contact
>customer to no avail, netblock has been removed until they prove
>oth
Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google
search. Should be pretty easy to find this info with that tool in your
handbag.
With the above tool I've got your phone # and would be happy to call
you if you'd like clarification on our process.
Please just reply to me off-list.
In message ,
rr wrote:
>Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google
>search. Should be pretty easy to find this info with that tool in your
>handbag.
Which info is that, exactly? Your title at Integra Telecom?
Umm... well... yes I guess this is you, right?
http:/
On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> (Sorry, but I can't help snickering a bit at your _prior_ employment.
> As I feel sure you are already painfully aware, having that on your
> resume does not exactly inspire a whole lotta confidence in the notion
> that you are a straight
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Brett Watson wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> (Sorry, but I can't help snickering a bit at your _prior_ employment.
>> As I feel sure you are already painfully aware, having that on your
>> resume does not exactly inspire a wh
lto:r...@tristatelogic.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:46 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
In message ,
rr wrote:
>Hmm, thought it was a NANOG prerequisite to be able to do a google
>search. Should be pretty easy to find thi
In message , John van Oppen wrote:
>Why does it matter what his position is?
Well, if he was, you know, just the janitor or something, then I think
that we could all safely assume that his opinions are...well.. his opinions,
and that they should not be improperly or unfairly construed as offici
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:36:55AM -0400, Atticus wrote:
> Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to
> people, they would be more interested in helping you out.
And were it ten or fifteen years ago, I might agree with you.
But it's not. By now, everyone knows, or dar
So the hell with his prose: focus on the matter at hand. Let's find out
what happened here and how, who's responsible, and what it'll take to stop
them from doing it again and again.
Well put.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Richweb.com outgoing Mail
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:36:55AM -0400, Atticus wrote:
Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to
people, they would be more interested in helping you out.
And were it ten or fifteen years ago, I might agree with you.
But
I may regret wading into this one
Regarding posting from a Gmail account, I'm also posting from a non-work
account, for two reasons. One, our company policy is to tag an annoying
legal disclaimer onto every outbound message, and two, I don't want
anything I say on this list to come back on
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 06:09:22PM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
> We would NEVER "out" the customer to the public, even if we felt the
> abuse was intentional. My CEO and our lawyers would blow a gasket if
> we were to potentially libel a customer.
And this why we (the community) find ourselves wh
On 4/4/2011 1:04 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 06:09:22PM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
We would NEVER "out" the customer to the public, even if we felt the
abuse was intentional. My CEO and our lawyers would blow a gasket if
we were to potentially libel a customer.
And this wh
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:30:41 CDT, Jason Baugher said:
> I suppose theoretically that a ToS could be crafted that would allow the
> vendor to release customer information in the case of ANY suspected
> abuse, but do you really think that would make a difference to "The Bad
> Guys"?
A better que
On 4/4/2011 2:43 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:30:41 CDT, Jason Baugher said:
I suppose theoretically that a ToS could be crafted that would allow the
vendor to release customer information in the case of ANY suspected
abuse, but do you really think that would make a
18 matches
Mail list logo
