On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ken Chase <m...@sizone.org> wrote: > >"Abuse cannot not provide you a list of websites that may be > encountering > >reduced visibility via Cogent" > > They could, if they kept a list of forward lookups they had done to get IPs >
i think you mean passive-dns .. which is a thing, and exists. (mumble (passive total|farsight|deteque|....) mumble) > that ended up in their blacklists. But just having the IPs it's impossible > to > get the whole list of possible hostnames that point at it (reverse records > are > singular, and often missing). > > Nonetheless, it'd be nice to know how a single IP got onto the list - and > what > Cogent's doing about situations where multiple other hostnames map onto the > same ip. > > it's totally possible that the list here is really just a court-order addition, right? I can't imagine that there is a cogent employee just evily twiddling pens and adding random ips to blacklists... > I have clietns that are Cogent customers, I'd just like to get informed > before > I bring the hammer down. > > it's worth noting that fairly much every service provider has a provision like cogent's 'force majaure' clause which includes: '...any law, order, regulation...' so it seems safe to assume that there's some court order cogent reacted to :( we should fight that problem upstream. > /kc > -- > Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada > Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 > Front St. W. >
