On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:59:11PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
I just became aware of an SOP at Network solutions. On a contact change
to a domain, they automatically transfer lock the domain for 60 days.
You might want to ask them, but I'd bet lunch this is an
anti-domain-theft policy.
If
I apologize if this is off topic.
Currently the IP 69.80.239.50 is the victim of a reflection attack.
Many operators may be seeing what appears to be a syn attack generated by this
IP.
These are actually spoofed packet hitting an open port designed to generate a
syn-ack packet at the victim
if anyone from cox.net is reading...
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the
content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do not
contact Cox
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers
can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently does not care
to hear about it.
Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about
Or it was a minor oversight and you're all pissing and moaning over nothing?
That's a thought too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wroteth on 11/20/2007 11:42 AM:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers
can
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their
customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently
does not care to hear about it.
Seems to be
On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their
customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse
Or it was a minor oversight and you're all pissing and moaning over nothing?
That's a thought too.
Pretty much all of network operations is pissing and moaning over
nothing, if you wish to consider it such. Some of us actually care.
In any case, I believe that I've found the Cox abuse
On Nov 20, 2007 2:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ snip ]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in the
content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution
Heh better then my all time favorite was the mailbox is full reply
from an abuse@ address for an ISP based in Nigeria who had a few servers
trying to open umpteen fraud accounts :D
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:50 EST, Raymond L. Corbin said:
Heh better then my all time favorite was the mailbox is full reply
from an abuse@ address for an ISP based in Nigeria who had a few servers
trying to open umpteen fraud accounts :D
I've seen my share of 800-pound gorillas (we're talking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I'm sure many readers of the list know *that* feeling - you found
and fixed
the problem before the first complaint arrives, but you still get
deluged by
more complaints for another week or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in
the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in
the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do
not contact Cox Communications, contact the block list administrators.)
An
(I'm sure many readers of the list know *that* feeling - you found and fixed
the problem before the first complaint arrives, but you still get deluged by
more complaints for another week or so...)
Or another 6 months from AOL ;-]
No... for AOL add 6 MORE months + three days
15 matches
Mail list logo