On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:17:36PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Hi,
There are many instances in the business world where a court prohibits you
from disconnecting services to a customer so that their business can
continue to operate, such as during chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Sabri Berisha wrote:
And then I'm not even taking into account the fact that the UCI/Pegasus
is a well-known spammer (http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html).
I imagine NAC is pretty tired of being RBL'd. Can't blame them for being
eager to rid themselves of this pest.
The
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Sabri Berisha wrote:
And then I'm not even taking into account the fact that the UCI/Pegasus
is a well-known spammer (http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html).
I imagine NAC is pretty tired of being RBL'd. Can't blame them for
As more and more of the facts come to light, it appears that NAC has brought
much of this on themselves, and will need to dedicate the legal resources to
counter the claims of Pegasus, in fact their own survival may well depend on
it. I have to admit I have little sympathy for them or any
Question:
What would be the practical effects of a court decision if a 3rd party ISP:
1) buys NAC;
2) inherit the PA space;
3) and *operating* from abroad (non-US), anounces the same portion of PA
space the court said belongs to the customer.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
*
On 2004-06-30-07:38:07, Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As more and more of the facts come to light, it appears that NAC
has brought much of this on themselves, and will need to dedicate
the legal resources to counter the claims of Pegasus, in fact their
own survival may well depend on
On Jun 30, 2004, at 7:38 AM, Doug White wrote:
As more and more of the facts come to light, it appears that NAC has
brought
much of this on themselves, and will need to dedicate the legal
resources to
counter the claims of Pegasus, in fact their own survival may well
depend on
it. I have to
On Jun 30, 2004, at 4:58 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I do not see it that way, from what is known so far, NAC for some time
has been trying to either buy pegasus or force them to sign long term
agreement with terms that would be very beneficial to NAC financially.
I'm just wondering how that
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
able to use IP Space allocated
As more and more of the facts come to light, please do some research before
you accuse an ASN a SpamBone just by looking at spamhaus Co. lists.
They are a budget-fitting dedicated server + colocation service provider with
over 1500 servers on the network premise. They've lacked certain planning
Matthew Crocker wrote:
From my understanding the customer has their own IP space
allocated by ARIN and has had that space for over a year.
They have already had adequate time to transition to their
own space.
Agree: they could have their ARIN space routed to their equipment and
begun the
On 30-jun-04, at 1:47, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that
forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC,
to be
able to use IP Space allocated to
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
able to
What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
able to use IP Space allocated to NAC. In other words, I am asking people
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, David Schwartz wrote:
:
:
: What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
: strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
: ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
: able to use IP Space
15 matches
Mail list logo
