<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

> [...outfits...which assume] that the administrative contact for an IP
> address range is necessarily the appropriate addressee for
> [notifications of spammous behaviour].

> At least for 137.43/16, this is not the case, something I've tried to
> make abundantly clear in the data carried by both ARIN and RIPE-NCC
> for this network.

Um.  I must be msising something.  What, pray tell, do you think the
administrative conjtact address _is_ for, if not administrative issues?
Or do you not consider disciplining spammous users to be an
adminsitrative matter?

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>