In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer Science
>Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the
>accuracy of blacklists.
I looked at the survey and I don't understand what you mean by "black
N
contracted registries and registrars are supposed to switch to RDAP at
some point but I'm not holding my breath.
>For instance I have found the whois.arin.net ...
The RIRs are different. They actually do have RDAP servers that work
pretty well.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Pr
In article ,
Richard Clayton wrote:
>>Only a few of them are listed on https://www.spamhaus.org/drop/
>So announcing a prefix that is on that list is not a good sign (indeed
>far from it) -- but don't expect a "new" hijacker to only choose from
>that list or indeed to pick any prefixes from that
In article
you write:
>Abuse reports are a nuisance � anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get their
>head examined.
Of course they are. But abuse from your customers is a nuisance, too, and if
you have any sense
you will welcome reports about it so you can fix the problem before everyone
e
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Ronald,
>
>Can you please stop attacking ideas (such as web forms) implying that they
>only have malicious use cases.
There are plenty of sensible use cases for web forms.
But requiring them for abuse reporting is not one of them. If you want to set
up a w
It appears that U.Mutlu said:
>So, what to do if the hoster is uncooperative, like in this case?
>Where else to complain, what else to do?
If their ASN info is to be believed, they're in Bulgaria. It's unlikely anyone
there cares.
Just block their network 80.94.95.0/24 and forget about it.
FW
It appears that � ngel Gonzalez Berdasco via anti-abuse-wg
said:
>> Just block their network 80.94.95.0/24 and forget about it.
>organisation: ORG-BA1515-RIPE
>org-name: BtHoster LTD
>country:GB
>org-type: OTHER
>address:26, New Kent Road, London, SE1 6TJ, UNITED KI
It appears that Michele Neylon - Blacknight via anti-abuse-wg
said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Serge
>
>Several ccTLD registries have given discounts for DNSSEC.
>
>What is unclear is how many of the domains with DNSSEC enabled are in active
>use, so the lack of �problems� could be simply down
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
I have a free /48 from Hurricane and they delegated the rDNS as part
of the setup so it's not like it's unusual or difficult. Delegating
IPv6 rDNS
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>On Sat 06/Apr/2024 19:54:27 +0200 Randy Bush wrote:
> Why isn't it possible to gain a delegation by proving number
> assignment?
Because your ISP can't be bothered.
>>> Is such unbotherability legitimate?
>RIPE could at least reproach those L
rsons who do.
We've been pointing this out for a decade to academics who imagine
themselves to be privacy advocates. They have consistently stuck
their fingers in their ears "la la I don't hear you" so I doubt it'll
be any more effective this time.
Regards,
John Levi
e who is familiar with this issue.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
In article you write:
>> One of them is gestio...@telefonica.net.pe (because my company has received
>> many many spams originated from its network so I wrote a spam
>complaint to this e-address but the mail was rejected for non-existent
>mailbox!)
My notes at abuse.net suggest these two addres
13 matches
Mail list logo
