This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
furio ercolessi
furio+as at spin.it
Mon Aug 8 18:01:37 CEST 2011
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 03:42:35PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > [Catching up after being out of office for a while...] > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > [...] > > > > Can we turn back to the question that was actually riased in the thread? > > Yes, please. :-) > > As Spamhouse was mentioned, and the term "hijacked" pointed at, > can anyone please provide me/us with (a pointer to) the definition of > "hijacked", in particular as used by Spamhouse? They define "hijacked netblocks" in http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=DROP%20FAQ#258 furio
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]