[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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 03:20:58 CEST 2011
Spamhaus might be able to explain better But when I see that and want more information I'd ask them rather than doubt them. Just saying. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > > >> Freshly added to spamhaus - > > My personal problem with these reports is that they are totally > incomprehensible to me. Why do you think the netblocks have been > hijacked? Maybe the documentation in the WHOIS database is outdated, > and Link Telecom still enjoys full control over those prefixes. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- 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 ]