Re: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-28 Thread Matt Sergeant
Dallas Engelken wrote: >> Dallas Engelken wrote: >> >>> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ Are you guys fucking serious!! >>> >>> That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. >>> 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255 >> >> This has nothing to do with SpamAssassin. I'd rather not have t

Re: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-27 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Dallas Engelken wrote: > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ > Are you guys fucking serious!! > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255 You're wrong. Firstly, we aren't "blocking" those hosts, we are assi

RE: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-27 Thread Dallas Engelken
> Dallas Engelken wrote: > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ > > Are you guys fucking serious!! > > > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. > > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255 > > This has nothing to do with SpamAssassin. I'd rather not have to see > this sort of abuse on

Re: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-27 Thread Simon Lyall
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Dallas Engelken wrote: > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ > > Are you guys fucking serious!! > > > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. > > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255 > > This has nothing to do with SpamAssassin. I'd rather n

Re: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-27 Thread Bart Schaefer
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Dallas Engelken wrote: > There can never be justification for blocking the entire netblock that > is that large. There's frequently not justification for blocking any other netblock, either. You have to choose which blacklists have sane administrators, and hope that others

Re: [SAtalk] 64.216.0.0/14 (Listed)

2002-06-27 Thread Matt Sergeant
Dallas Engelken wrote: > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ > Are you guys fucking serious!! > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock. > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219.255.255 This has nothing to do with SpamAssassin. I'd rather not have to see this sort of abuse on our list. Matt.