Today at 18:38 (+0100), Dan Houghton wrote: > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:38:43 +0100 > From: Dan Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Christopher Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Hey netscalibur! (was: Re: Hijacked email) > > [. . .] > > IP in question is in use by a Netscalibur UK customer. The RIPE whois > record for the IP provides the abuse@ contact details (which is staffed and > dealt with correctly) but also noticed you emailed onto > [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well. > > I'll make sure that the NOC staff deal with it and get these stopped.
Thanks for the quick response, Dan. It's great to hear that you have alert folks on the other end of both abuse@ and noc@ roles. As with most organizations, we have a fair amount of overlap between queries that arrive at abuse@, security@, and noc@, but we tend to handle operational issues via noc, and abuse@ is mostly for questionable behavior (intentional or otherwise) by our local users. With that in mind, I figured [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be the more appropriate address. Please do let me know (offline is OK too) if that is not your preference. Thanks, - Christopher
