Michael wrote:
Kyle Williams wrote:
reject 0.0.0.0/8:* <http://0.0.0.0/8:*>
reject 169.254.0.0/16:* <http://169.254.0.0/16:*>
reject 127.0.0.0/8:* <http://127.0.0.0/8:*>
reject 192.168.0.0/16:* <http://192.168.0.0/16:*>
reject 10.0.0.0/8:* <http://10.0.0.0/8:*>
reject 172.16.0.0/12:* <http://172.16.0.0/12:*>
reject 66.109.20.52:*
accept *:80
accept *:443
accept *:43
reject *:*
Kyle,
One more question if you would indulge my curiosity. What service
was the course of the "spam"?
Michael
I'm replying to my own post because my comment makes me look like a
moron.
I was wondering if the complaint was about abuse of whois servers or
web based services.
Michael
