[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 ]
furio ercolessi
furio+as at spin.it
Mon Aug 8 18:01:37 CEST 2011
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 03:42:35PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > [Catching up after being out of office for a while...] > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > [...] > > > > Can we turn back to the question that was actually riased in the thread? > > Yes, please. :-) > > As Spamhouse was mentioned, and the term "hijacked" pointed at, > can anyone please provide me/us with (a pointer to) the definition of > "hijacked", in particular as used by Spamhouse? They define "hijacked netblocks" in http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=DROP%20FAQ#258 furio
- 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 ]