[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Aug 9 12:55:05 CEST 2011
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: [...] > In any case, too many to list. ...where is this notion or quote coming from? Checking http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ripe gives me "There are no current SBL listings for ripe" > Never mind the "ISP" there - Sorry, IMHO we have to mind, considerably, because it misleads the folks with less insight, involvement or long-term exposure to the problem field. > spamhaus > used the same script they use to generate per ISP reports of SBL > listings. And I am nit-picking here, because Spamhaus tends to be pretty liberal and fuzzy sometimes, with terminology, categorisation and/or actions. Like - quoting from the FAQ: "...in ranges assigned by every Regional Internet Registry (RIR) including ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and others." In fact the "every" are exacly *5*. So either explicitely quoting the 3 or using the phrase "and others." is again misleading. And btw, it silently ignores the fact that there are NIRs, too ;-) > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz at gmx.net> wrote: > >>RIPE: has far too many records to list. This ISP has an extremely >>serious spam problem. >> >>http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=arin >> >>Hmmm... 'extremely serious spam problem'? Only RIPE 'has far too many >>records to list.' >> >>What's this? Wilfried