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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 03:20:58 CEST 2011
Spamhaus might be able to explain better But when I see that and want more information I'd ask them rather than doubt them. Just saying. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > > >> Freshly added to spamhaus - > > My personal problem with these reports is that they are totally > incomprehensible to me. Why do you think the netblocks have been > hijacked? Maybe the documentation in the WHOIS database is outdated, > and Link Telecom still enjoys full control over those prefixes. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- 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 ]