You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

  • To: Steve Linford < >
  • From: Paul Wouters < >
  • Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:54:52 +0100 (MET)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Steve Linford wrote:

> >  so you advocate RIPE not reallocatiing IPs that have been used by a
> >  spammer?
> That's a difficult one, I would say 'yes' but then RIPE would need a 
> process to know that a particular IP range is effectively destroyed 
> for re-allocation for a period of time. 

Isn't this exactly *why* RIPE doesn't allocate an IP range for at least a
few years, regardless of the reason they got it back? If blacklists still
have IP numbers of a few years ago, I'd strongly recommend against using
that blacklist, it's obviously not a good list.

I wonder if my UUnet 194.229.18/24 is still in the static ORBS children :)

> These guys get huge ARIN allocations (/20s, /16s) 

Then perhaps ARIN needs to revise their allocation scheme?

> At a guess, these blocks remain in local blacklists for a couple of 
> years or so.

That's a bad practice :)


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>