On 01/18/2011 06:21 AM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
> On 18 January 2011 13:10, Simon Waters wrote:
>
>>> Obviously they know about them because google has the information.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a reasonable deduction.
>>
>>
> Correct - It is completely unreasonable. I was using it as an example in
>
> We don't *care* if you got this issue with Spamhaus resolved. You
> turned it into a much *larger* problem than that.
Really? Problem solved:
% cat - >> sendmail-access
From:jeffrey.l...@gmail.com 550 Mail refused
From:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net550 Mail refused
Connect:199.59.160
On 18 January 2011 13:10, Simon Waters wrote:
> > Obviously they know about them because google has the information.
>
> I'm not sure this is a reasonable deduction.
>
>
Correct - It is completely unreasonable. I was using it as an example in
reference to a larger, well known provider since earli
On Tuesday 18 January 2011 11:46:53 Ken Gilmour wrote:
>
> Obviously they know about them because google has the information.
I'm not sure this is a reasonable deduction.
On 18 January 2011 10:00, Michael Painter wrote:
>
>> http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:32421
>>
>>
I'm completely neutral in all of this but to be fair to BL - Here's the well
respected Level3's results:
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/dia
> It was blocked and I did verify it. A very small amount of our traffic
> comes in on PCCW and *they* were not honoring a tag that they've
> contractually agreed to honor. I can understand why it may be fun to
> make this look like a product of my own incompetence, and perhaps it
> is something I
On 17/01/11 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
I'm not a spammer. I'm an ISP asking to be removed from Spamhaus for
having fixed the SBL listings set in the last< 72 hours. I'm not
exactally ROKSO material.
Jeff
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:32421
Safe Bro
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:59 PM, JC Dill wrote:
>
>
> On 17/01/11 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> I'm not a spammer. I'm an ISP asking to be removed from Spamhaus for
>> having fixed the SBL listings set in the last< 72 hours. I'm not
>> exactally ROKSO material.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Mon, Jan
On 17/01/11 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
I'm not a spammer. I'm an ISP asking to be removed from Spamhaus for
having fixed the SBL listings set in the last< 72 hours. I'm not
exactally ROKSO material.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jeff
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:31:58 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else
do you people want?
That's a fine first step, but then tomorrow when everyone has forgotten
about all this, that server gets turned back on and the trash continues.
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:45:40 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to extend a special thanks to one of the Spamhaus team
> members for reaching out to me and offering dialogue on this matter.
> He was quite polite and understanding of the situation and we came to
> terms on wha
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:34:49 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> We were offering a privacy protected domain registration service at
> one point which we have since discontinued for obvious reasons.
Ah yes! That *was* you guys.
Did you know that you're still being recommended on 4chan /b/ for
no-quest
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
I'm getting 72.215.225.9 for that host.
[root:pts/0{4}]debian1:~/[09:53 PM]:whois canadian-rx-store.org | grep
^Name
Name Server:NS2.CODIZ.NET
Name Server:NS4.CODIZ.NET
...
[root:pts/0{4}]debian1:~/[09:53 PM]:host canadian-rx-store.o
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Mark Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> wrote:
>
>> I've tried taking it to Spamhaus directly on a few occasions but we
>> continue to get treated like crap. At least this way the public can
>> see that we have infact acted on the complai
All,
I would like to extend a special thanks to one of the Spamhaus team
members for reaching out to me and offering dialogue on this matter.
He was quite polite and understanding of the situation and we came to
terms on what needed to occur on both sides. I didn't catch his name
as the connection
We were offering a privacy protected domain registration service at
one point which we have since discontinued for obvious reasons.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
>> Raymond,
>>
>> I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
>> routed. My tracerou
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:28:55 -0500
> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
> > Rhetorical question. Probably PCCW isn't accepting the null routes.
> > Why not blacklist them for having messed up communities?
>
> Why not actually nullroute the IPs instead
t;
> Jeff
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Mark Scholten wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:58 AM
>>> To: TR Shaw
>>>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> I've tried taking it to Spamhaus directly on a few occasions but we
> continue to get treated like crap. At least this way the public can
> see that we have infact acted on the complaints.
>
>
We have found Spamhaus to work well with us. In t
They /are/ focusing on a provider that doesnt respond to complaints.
On Jan 17, 2011 9:20 PM, "Jeffrey Lyon" wrote:
I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else
do you people want? Why not focus your energy on the providers who are
NOT responding to complaints?
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mark Scholten wrote:
>> From: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com [mailto:jeffrey.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Jeffrey Lyon
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:32 AM
>>
>> I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else
>> do you people want? Why not f
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:38:54 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> It's a problem with PCCW not accepting the tags, we've had this issue
> with them occasionally and will need to address it with them directly.
> The machine itself has also been shut down so there should not be any
> further heartache.
$ w
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> wrote:
>> Is it NANOG/Spamhaus' job to punish us or perhaps its better to simply
>> be satisfied that we're listening to what is being said?
>
> Jeff,
>
> Neither is correct. It's Spamhaus' jo
> From: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com [mailto:jeffrey.l...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Lyon
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:32 AM
>
> I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else
> do you people want? Why not focus your energy on the providers who are
> NOT responding to
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Is it NANOG/Spamhaus' job to punish us or perhaps its better to simply
> be satisfied that we're listening to what is being said?
Jeff,
Neither is correct. It's Spamhaus' job to flag the folks who haven't
done a rudimentary job of keeping cr
I'm not a spammer. I'm an ISP asking to be removed from Spamhaus for
having fixed the SBL listings set in the last < 72 hours. I'm not
exactally ROKSO material.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> I fat fingered the netm
It's a problem with PCCW not accepting the tags, we've had this issue
with them occasionally and will need to address it with them directly.
The machine itself has also been shut down so there should not be any
further heartache.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> On
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:28:55 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Rhetorical question. Probably PCCW isn't accepting the null routes.
> Why not blacklist them for having messed up communities?
Why not actually nullroute the IPs instead of depending on BGP tagging?
Again: "ip route 208.64.120.197 255.255.
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Summarising other people positions: a functional abuse desk, a less
defensive attitude when people point out serious abuse going on in your
network, and the slightest inclination to investigate really serious
crap on your network when it's brought to your attention in the c
I've tried taking it to Spamhaus directly on a few occasions but we
continue to get treated like crap. At least this way the public can
see that we have infact acted on the complaints.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 00:38, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> All
On 1/17/2011 7:11 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> William,
>
> You're quite right, we don't. We presume that our customers are
> honorable until proven otherwise. We're a legitimate U.S. based
> corporation and we make ourselves available to the pertinent RBL's and
> authorities as appropriate. We take
>> From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:58 AM
>> To: TR Shaw
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Request Spamhaus contact
>>
>> TR,
>>
>> Again, it's been null routed. Customer has been
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:58 AM
> To: TR Shaw
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Request Spamhaus contact
>
> TR,
>
> Again, it's been null routed. Customer ha
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:23:17 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:21 PM, William Pitcock
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:46:55 -0500
> > Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> >
> >> Raymond,
> >>
> >> I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
> >> routed
> Raymond,
>
> I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
> routed. My traceroutes are dropping at my home ISP.
>
> Jeff
Come on Jeff, I googled the listed address for blacklotus.net, and look
what comes up:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=3419+Virgini
Rhetorical question. Probably PCCW isn't accepting the null routes.
Why not blacklist them for having messed up communities?
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
routed. My traceroutes
Hi!
I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
routed. My traceroutes are dropping at my home ISP.
I call bollocks. It's alive and kicking via BGP here.
edge1.lax01# show ip bgp 208.64.120.197/32
BGP routing table entry for 208.64.120.0/24, version 2014041464
Paths: (
Perhaps PCCW is not accepting the null routes? I'll have the DC power
down the pertinent machines.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> How are you seeing this? It is null routed from my home connection, it
>> is null routed from the L3 Looking Glass. Please
> From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:42 AM
>
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
>
> Thanks, Jeff
I don't think it is yet solved. The listed time is CET (GMT+1).
tmp@support:~$ wget -S www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl
--2011-01-18 02:18:15--
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:21 PM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:46:55 -0500
> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> Raymond,
>>
>> I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
>> routed. My traceroutes are dropping at my home ISP.
>
> I call bollocks. It's alive
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> wrote:
>> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
>
> Jeff,
>
> You have some work left to do. Much of it is exhibited in the Spamhaus
> listing.
>
> wget -nd http://eros-pharmacy.com/
> --2011-
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:46:55 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Raymond,
>
> I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
> routed. My traceroutes are dropping at my home ISP.
I call bollocks. It's alive and kicking via BGP here.
edge1.lax01# show ip bgp 208.64.120.197/32
B
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Being a legitimate corporation means that we're accountable for
maintaining certain standards. Everyone assumes that because we
mitigate DDoS that we're no better than some offshore spam haven.
Will you please stop using "legitimate corporation" for wha
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
Jeff,
You have some work left to do. Much of it is exhibited in the Spamhaus listing.
wget -nd http://eros-pharmacy.com/
--2011-01-17 19:54:44-- http://eros-pharmacy.com/
Resolving eros-pharmacy.com...
Raymond,
Negative, it is null routed:
http://lg.level3.net
Show Level 3 (San Diego, CA) Traceroute to 208.64.120.197
1 ae-5-5.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.69.133.206) 4 msec 4 msec 12 msec
2 ae-4-90.edge1.LosAngeles9.Level3.net (4.69.144.202) 4 msec 4 msec
ae-3-80.edge1.LosAngeles9.Le
On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
Mmm hmm.
platter steve$ telnet 208.64.127.78 80
Trying 208.64.127.78...
Connected to 208.64.127.78.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: viagra-shopping.com
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Perma
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:42:22 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
$ wget -S www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl
--2011-01-17 19:07:59-- http://www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl/
Resolving www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl... 208.64.120.197
Connecting to www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl|208.64.120.19
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Jeffrey!
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
Still up:
# nmap -sS 208.64.120.197
Starting Nmap 5.21 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2011-01-17 17:07 PST
Nmap scan report for 208.64.120.197
Host is up (0.033s l
On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
I've asked privately but would it really be too much to take this off NANOG?
Spammer complaining he is on a RBL is hardly relevant.
Chris
--
-
> Raymond,
>
> We've acted on every report that we're aware of and instead you want
> to play pharmacy domain scavenger hunt. This domain at 208.64.120.197
> redirects to IP space we already null routed. It's the same customer.
>
> Just to calm your nerves we'll also null route that space (208.64.1
Hi!
Unless you guys can help find some more related IP space I think the
issue has been solved.
You are not able to even shutdown one thats mentioned. You keep telling
us its down and null routed. Its simply not. Its alive and kicking. Bullet
proof hosting rocks doesnt it?
This is now:
[r
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
of the "ddos-protected hosting solutions" companies do.
viagra-shopping .com
potenzmittel-at .com
medicin-24 .com
apothekeohnerezept .at
# whois 208.64.122.234
> [Querying whois.arin.net]
> [Redirected to rwhois.blacklotus.net:4321]
> [Querying rwhois.blacklotus.ne
On 18/01/2011 00:38, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
All of this IP space is null routed. The customer has been served with
notice to vacate. What more are you asking for?
Summarising other people positions: a functional abuse desk, a less
defensive attitude when people point out serious abuse going on in
TR,
Again, it's been null routed. Customer has been served with notice.
Unless you guys can help find some more related IP space I think the
issue has been solved.
Thanks, Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> Actually, it does not:
>
> $ host apothekeosterreich.at
> apothekeo
Actually, it does not:
$ host apothekeosterreich.at
apothekeosterreich.at has address 208.64.120.197
apothekeosterreich.at mail is handled by 10 mail.apothekeosterreich.at.
$ curl -I -L apothekeosterreich.at
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Cache-Control: private
Content-Length: 0
Location: http://w
I've got no experience running a DNSBL, nor does William, but it seems
to me that I'm not getting told the truth. Now, as I said, I don't
always agree with Spamhaus' policies, but I'd bet a ham sandwich that
you don't get delisted any time soon.
Andrew
> William,
>
> It depends, we have criteri
Raymond,
I do not take you for a fool, the assignment is legitimately null
routed. My traceroutes are dropping at my home ISP.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
>
>>> HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
>>> 1 HT
Hi!
I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response...
1 HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
2 Cache-Control: private
3 Content-Length: 0
4 Location: http://www.vertrouwdeapotheek.nl/Home.aspx
5 Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.0
6 X-AspNet-Version: 4.0.30319
7 X-Powered-By
William,
I had no idea what "Yandex" was until Spamhaus brought it to my
attention. I still don't really know, taking them at their word at
this point.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0500
> Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
Hmmm. Null routed? Lets see
http://www.apothekeosterreich.at/Home.aspx
http://www.viagra-shopping.com/Home.aspx
Do I really need to show you more?
Tom
On Jan 17, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Raymond,
>
> All of this IP space is null routed. The customer has been served with
>
I fat fingered the netmask, try now.
Thanks, Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> We've acted on every report that we're aware of and instead you want
>> to play pharmacy domain scavenger hunt. This domain at 208.64.120.197
>> redirects to IP space we alrea
Hi!
We've acted on every report that we're aware of and instead you want
to play pharmacy domain scavenger hunt. This domain at 208.64.120.197
redirects to IP space we already null routed. It's the same customer.
Either you place strange nullroutes or you did not at all.
[root@mi10 tmp]# wget
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:21:19 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> William,
>
> It depends, we have criteria. You can't just e-mail
> ab...@blacklotus.net and expect any given web site to be immediately
> shut down. There is due process and we need to make a decision on the
> matter and serve it to o
Raymond,
All of this IP space is null routed. The customer has been served with
notice to vacate. What more are you asking for?
Best regards, Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Actually, that was just a brain lapse. The domain didn't resolve at
>> all (m
Hi!
Actually, that was just a brain lapse. The domain didn't resolve at
all (misspelled?) and it returned the Cox default resolution.
Instead of looking at typo's or misspelled stuff, can you null route the
rest of the abuse reports that came in? Or should we get it added on the
SBL listing
Raymond,
We've acted on every report that we're aware of and instead you want
to play pharmacy domain scavenger hunt. This domain at 208.64.120.197
redirects to IP space we already null routed. It's the same customer.
Just to calm your nerves we'll also null route that space (208.64.120.176/28)
Actually, that was just a brain lapse. The domain didn't resolve at
all (misspelled?) and it returned the Cox default resolution.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> So the fact that you host the spamvertized pill and other spam sites makes it
> OK because the spamming email
So the fact that you host the spamvertized pill and other spam sites makes it
OK because the spamming email came from residential machines that were coopted?
That's weird logic but maybe that's why your abuse never responded to us nor
shuts them down.
Tom
On Jan 17, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Jeffre
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I'm getting 72.215.225.9 for that host.
The nameservers just changed to ns2/ns4.codiz.net.
ns2 is a bogon, the real deal is ns4 hosted at corbina.ru, which has an
abuse@ that goes to /dev/null so whatever.
Man. Hosting Y
Hi!
Spam does not make me nervous, it's a practical matter that we will
address in due course. The null routes we have set are pretty recent
so you may have received some spam prior to that time but I absolutely
guarantee you that it did not come from our network, otherwise we
would have detecte
William,
It depends, we have criteria. You can't just e-mail
ab...@blacklotus.net and expect any given web site to be immediately
shut down. There is due process and we need to make a decision on the
matter and serve it to our customer. If a customer is listed at
Spamhaus this is sufficient.
Bein
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:11:37 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> William,
>
> You're quite right, we don't. We presume that our customers are
> honorable until proven otherwise. We're a legitimate U.S. based
> corporation and we make ourselves available to the pertinent RBL's and
> authorities as a
On 1/17/2011 6:55 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
1) The sites were already null routed. The problem is with Spamhaus'
inability to contact me prior to impacting other legitimate customers.
Null routed?
Its up!
[root@master tmp]# host www.viagra-shopping.com
www.viagra-shopping.com ha
Hi!
208.64.120.186 canadian-rx-store.org
That is not in our IP space.
http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=208.64.120.186?showDetails=true&showARIN=false
If they claim its not theirs lets ask ARIN to revoke the space.
Bye,
Raymond.
Raymond,
Spam does not make me nervous, it's a practical matter that we will
address in due course. The null routes we have set are pretty recent
so you may have received some spam prior to that time but I absolutely
guarantee you that it did not come from our network, otherwise we
would have dete
Hi!
That is not in our IP space. These are the only SBL's we have outstanding:
SBL101835
208.64.127.64/27blacklotus.net
17-Jan-2011 14:44 GMT
Drug spam domain hosting
SBL101662
208.64.123.176/28 blacklotus.net
14-Jan-2011 10:31 GMT
Drug spam domain hosting
208.64.120.186 cana
Bill,
I'm getting 72.215.225.9 for that host.
Jeff
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> I pulled up http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL100691 .
William,
You're quite right, we don't. We presume that our customers are
honorable until proven otherwise. We're a legitimate U.S. based
corporation and we make ourselves available to the pertinent RBL's and
authorities as appropriate. We take action where action needs to be
taken.
I take offense
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> I pulled up http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL100691 .
>> There is a rather long list at that page of offending IP addresses and
>> names. Just for grins, I picked one at
I just have to chime in here besides Raymond and others data, I can attest that
blacklotus abuse contact is worthless.
I have tried to report abuse to blacklotus many times. My last attempt was back
in September when I tried for a week to report Canadian Pharmacy pill spam on a
blacklotus IP.
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:54:37 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> William,
>
> Our company is primarily focused on the filtering of DDoS traffic. A
> significant amount of our IP space is routed elsewhere via proxy or
> GRE. If a customer pollutes, they pollute and thats their own
> business. If the
Bill,
That is not in our IP space. These are the only SBL's we have outstanding:
SBL101835
208.64.127.64/27blacklotus.net
17-Jan-2011 14:44 GMT
Drug spam domain hosting
SBL101662
208.64.123.176/28 blacklotus.net
14-Jan-2011 10:31 GMT
Drug spam domain ho
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Our listing is misleading. They show me specifically what needs to be
> done and why and we will act on it. The problem is that they expect me
> to dig through our customer database and correlate various customers
> to ROKSO listings. I don't
Hi!
1) The sites were already null routed. The problem is with Spamhaus'
inability to contact me prior to impacting other legitimate customers.
Null routed?
Its up!
[root@master tmp]# host www.viagra-shopping.com
www.viagra-shopping.com has address 208.64.127.78
viagra-shopping .com
po
William,
Our company is primarily focused on the filtering of DDoS traffic. A
significant amount of our IP space is routed elsewhere via proxy or
GRE. If a customer pollutes, they pollute and thats their own
business. If they abuse, we take action. If Spamhaus contacts us
before ruining the busine
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:35:22 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> William,
>
> I'm not certain that any Black Lotus IP's are even connected to EFnet.
Maybe not presently, but your company has a history in the IRC
community. And it's not a history I would define as "good."
A history of selling "protect
1) The sites were already null routed. The problem is with Spamhaus'
inability to contact me prior to impacting other legitimate customers.
2) The presumed cleanness of a customer really isn't any of mine or
your business, as long as they're not spamming or engaged in any other
type of abuse they'r
Hi!
That's fine, but the listings don't even make sense. There is no
evidence in the listing and i'm still trying to figure out a) why they
think that these new listings have anything to do with the ones we
already cleaned and b) which customers actually need to be removed and
for specifically w
William,
I'm not certain that any Black Lotus IP's are even connected to EFnet.
Secondly, we're more than happy to act on any data presented to us if
they actually care to present it to us before listing the entire ISP.
I'm not sure what non-spam related "e-trash" has to do this any of this.
Tha
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:09:07 -0500
Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> That's fine, but the listings don't even make sense. There is no
> evidence in the listing and i'm still trying to figure out a) why they
> think that these new listings have anything to do with the ones we
> already cleaned and b) whi
Tom,
They list domains. For one, these listings are recent and I had no
idea they existed until now. One of them was actually received by our
abuse@ (the first one ever!) on the 14th and the complaint was already
sent to the customer for action. Meanwhile back at Camp Spamhaus, they
can't wait thr
Spamhaus,
I just blocked a bunch of customer space without any form of due
process or evidence from you:
208.64.123.176/30
208.64.127.64/27
This should resolve SBL101835, SBL101662, and SBL100691.
Let me know if any of our customers have any outstanding parking
tickets, because I would like to
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:12 -0500, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Our listing is misleading. They show me specifically what needs to be
> done and why and we will act on it. The problem is that they expect me
> to dig through our customer database and correlate various customers
> to ROKSO listings. I don't
Our listing is misleading. They show me specifically what needs to be
done and why and we will act on it. The problem is that they expect me
to dig through our customer database and correlate various customers
to ROKSO listings. I don't have the resources for this. If they show
me where the problem
That's fine, but the listings don't even make sense. There is no
evidence in the listing and i'm still trying to figure out a) why they
think that these new listings have anything to do with the ones we
already cleaned and b) which customers actually need to be removed and
for specifically what rea
On 01/17/2011 02:15 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Someone at Spamhaus please contact me concerning your second
> consecutive preemptive strike against our IP space.
>
> Fun Fact: No one at Spamhaus has ever successfully sent us an abuse
> complaint. Also, some rocket scientist decided that their
> sbl
I'm not Spamhaus. I don't necessarily agree with their listing
policies, but reading your SBL record,
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL100691, it appears that
someone from your ISP has been in contact with Spamhaus, and were less
than thorough in removing the spam gang you guys signe
Someone at Spamhaus please contact me concerning your second
consecutive preemptive strike against our IP space.
Fun Fact: No one at Spamhaus has ever successfully sent us an abuse
complaint. Also, some rocket scientist decided that their
sbl-removals@ box should also filter e-mail so blocked part
98 matches
Mail list logo
