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 ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Fri Jul 29 09:24:09 CEST 2011
* Suresh Ramasubramanian: > 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. Sorry, you can't expect a constructive discussion if you just dump unstructured information and claim that is evidence of some policy violation, when other participants are not able to recognize your data as evidence (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this regard). The Spamhaus report you referenced (rather indirectly) is not very illuminating, either. It says, "This block is to be returned to RIPE". What does this mean? Is it in the process of being returned? Has Spamhaus suggested (to whom?) that it should be returned? Is this some sort of demand?
- 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 ]