[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

[...]
> In any case, too many to list.

...where is this notion or quote coming from?

Checking http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ripe
gives me "There are no current SBL listings for ripe"

>  Never mind the "ISP" there -

Sorry, IMHO we have to mind, considerably, because it misleads the
folks with less insight, involvement or long-term exposure to the problem
field.

> spamhaus
> used the same script they use to generate per ISP reports of SBL
> listings.

And I am nit-picking here, because Spamhaus tends to be pretty liberal
and fuzzy sometimes, with terminology, categorisation and/or actions.

Like - quoting from the FAQ:
"...in ranges assigned by every Regional Internet Registry (RIR) including
 ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and others."

In fact the "every" are exacly *5*.
So either explicitely quoting the 3 or using the phrase "and others." is
again misleading.
And btw, it silently ignores the fact that there are NIRs, too ;-)

> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz at gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>>RIPE: has far too many records to list. This ISP has an extremely
>>serious spam problem.
>>
>>http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=arin
>>
>>Hmmm... 'extremely serious spam problem'? Only RIPE 'has far too many
>>records to list.'
>>
>>What's this?

Wilfried