On Monday 03 Jul 2006 16:26, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
We are very much anti-spam and I will look into Mark's issue - I'm
looking through the tickets for abuse@ and there is no email sent in
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
I suspect he tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] which seems to be in rfc-ignorant.
On Monday 03 Jul 2006 06:16, you wrote:
Forgive the relative noobishness of the question, but I've not had to deal
with this sort of situation before. Should I be forwarding to RIPE?
I don't think RIPE will be that interested.
The address range gets connectivity from someone. I suggest
to
provide updated, correct details?
The IP range in question is 195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255 and a snippet
of the whois info provided is as follows:
remarks:
remarks: * Abuse contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
remarks
Hello,
On Jul 3, 2006, at 3:53 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
On Monday 03 Jul 2006 06:16, you wrote:
Forgive the relative noobishness of the question, but I've not had
to deal
with this sort of situation before. Should I be forwarding to RIPE?
I don't think RIPE will be that interested.
through
bandwidth-supplier-agreements or somesuch. Shouldn't IP's with similarly
invalid contact details be 'suspended' after being given opportunity to
provide updated, correct details?
The IP range in question is 195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255 and a snippet
of the whois info provided
http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois?lg=EN
...you can find that:
#These addresses have been further assigned to Brazilian users.
#Contact information can be found at the WHOIS server located
#at whois.registro.br and at http://whois.nic.br
Well, if you could speak Portuguese you would
I can assure you, this Brazilian ISP is not small... :-)
I have visited with them (as well as a couple of other
ISP's in Brazil), and communicating with them has never
been a problem, at least for the ones that I have previously
met with.
As an aside (and not intentionally meaning to sound
Can anyone provide a better way to find, say, the appropriate
contact information for address blocks that are further rellocated
from the regional registries? I've about reached my frustration
levels over the course of the past year on the issue.
Example: Trying to find the approriate contact
Thanks to all who responded privately off-list.
What I was looking for: http://registro.br/cgi-bin/nicbr/whois
..which wasn't exactly intuitive from the main page:
http://registro.br/index.html
Also, I liked the alternative suggestion of:
telnet rwhois.whatever.foo 4321
enter dotted quad
So my view of it is the same as current practice and laws (at least in
US)
which require business (including DBA) registrations in county/state
registrar and requirying and making public corporate records, including
address of the company and list of its officers.
Interesting how many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Interesting how many companies are parked at a lawyers office,
i.e. the official address of the company is that of it's legal
firm. One wonders why an abuse organization would not use this same
tactic and register a legal firm as the administrative contact.
How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The network itself is the primary contact information
for a domain. Every nameserver has an IP address
whose connectivity can be tracked through the network.
Same thing for mail servers and anything else with
an A record. This means that operationally it is
far more
william(at)elan.net wrote:
It matters if we're talking about Tom, John or Susan working for some
commercial company and contacting me as part of the activity of that
entity, in that case I'd like to know about the domain and don't want
to see its whois data hidden.
I find it somewhat amusing
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
It matters if we're talking about Tom, John or Susan working for some
commercial company and contacting me as part of the activity of that
entity, in that case I'd like to know about the domain and don't want
to
--On 11 December 2004 12:07 -0500 Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion,
Ditto. I'd add one thing though: allowing anonymous registration is not
necessarily the same thing as allowing all details of registration to be
publicly queryable
I'm going to try to keep this short, hence it's incomplete/choppy. Maybe
we should take it to off-list mail with those interested.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Great! So, if you are a vulnerable minority, don't use the internet.
I said precisely the
Rich,
registrar_hat_current=on
epp_coauthor_hat=on
registry_hat_expired=on
You have an opinion, but I'm unable to detect a basis for that
opinion.
Allocations of string-space do not give rise to control over any
resource other than (conditionally) the
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
And the other side of it is: I don't think an Internet with anonymous people
controlling operational resources is workable.
OK, how many anonymous domains (ala domainsbyproxy) have you been unable
to contact?
I *never* attempt to contact the owners of a domain which
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
I'm confused. You never try to contact the owners of a domain which
appears to be the source of abuse, but insist that domains can't be
anonymous?
All rhetoric aside, this appears to be a question of what it means to have
a domain.
Once upon a
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
anonymously on the Internet: it just means that they can't control an
operational
I don't want to turn this into a domain policy discussion, but
here are a few comments (in some semblance of order) which relate
to the operational aspects.
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
1. Anyone controlling an operational resource (such as a domain) can't
be anonymous. This _in no way_ prevents anyone from doing things
anonymously on the Internet: it just means that they can't control an
operational resource, because that way lies madness.
As long as that
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That means if
spammer registers new domain he'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day. That
information by default. For
example, one of the domains I've registered has only the registrant name and
the DNS host's name. This is our full .ie whois info:
domain: blah
descr: BLAH
descr: Body Corporate (Ltd,PLC,Company)
descr: Registered Business Name
admin-c: ABA822-IEDR
tech-c: IBH1-IEDR
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within
about 10 minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
while whois data is still updated once or twice a day.
Elmar K. Bins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
[...]
This tempts me to hack something into Exim that does a whois on
previously-unseen sender domains, and give a deferral if the whois
denies existence of the domain. Is this likely to have any
meaningful
Peter Corlett wrote:
There's some awful tinpot domain registrars out there where you have
to wonder if their whois server is on the end of a dialup link, but
fortunately I'm not attempting to access those. Connectivity from here
to the CRSNIC server is good and no worse than to any other server I
In an earlier episode I pointed out to the list-resident VGRS person that
the dynamic properties introduced for one marketing purpose would have a
consequence in another problem domain, but no point revisiting that issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Corlett) wrote:
There's some awful tinpot
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, kent crispin wrote:
I disagree, I think this may be ok, but its specifically because its
for .com/.net whois (not ok for general TLD). Reasons are:
1. Internic.net / CRSNIC whois has no limit set on number of queries
client from particular ip can make before
registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
yet,
shell1% host -tns vestigial3had.com
vestigial3had.com name server ns1.kronuna.biz
vestigial3had.com name server ns2.kronuna.biz
shell1%
What gives ? How can their be no whois info anywhere
their be no whois info anywhere ?
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within about 10
minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz) while whois data
is still updated once or twice a day. That means if spammer registers new
domain he'll be able to use it immediatly and it'll
At 11:17 AM 09/12/2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Read NANOG archives - Verisign now allows immediate (well, within about 10
minutes) updates of .com/.net zones (also same for .biz)
Yes, I was aware of that.
while whois data
is still updated once or twice a day.
I (wrongly) assumed that the
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ?
You can also make whois information private, usually for an additional fee.
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: no whois info ?
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM
At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Perhaps 100% of spammers hide their registration data when possible,
but I wouldn't say that 100% of hidden registrations are spammers.
An RBL option of this type of data would probably mean forced
elimination of a benefit to the public - privacy.
At 02:33 PM 12/9/2004, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 01:50 PM 09/12/2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can there be no whois info anywhere ?
You can also make whois information private, usually for an additional fee.
I wonder
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:00 PM
To: Hannigan, Martin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: no whois info ?
At 02:44 PM 09/12/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[SNIP]
There has to be a balance between expectations
, the email address goes through a redirect or
is handled by an agent trusted by the domain holder?
Yes, I agree. I am talking about not having *ANY* whois info. I dont see
how any of your arguments justify
% whois vestigial3had.com
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can
Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can their be no whois info anywhere ?
How about the following... (note that just because someone is using
someone as their authoritative name server doesn't mean that the other
people
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ dig ns vestigial3had.com
snip
;; ANSWER SECTION:
vestigial3had.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.kronuna.biz.
vestigial3had.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.kronuna.biz.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ whois kronuna.biz
[Querying whois.neulevel.biz]
[whois.neulevel.biz]
At 07:49 PM 09/12/2004, Peter John Hill wrote:
Jeff Rosowski wrote:
shell1% whois vestigial3had.com
...
No match for VESTIGIAL3HAD.COM.
What gives ? How can their be no whois info anywhere ?
How about the following... (note that just because someone is using
someone as their authoritative name
More fun...
Mike Tancsa wrote:
1M IN MX10 www
1M IN A 200.124.75.12
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ whois 200.124.75.12
inetnum: 200.124.64/19
responsible: GoldToe International Inc.
address: 60 Market Square, 0, 0
address: 0 -
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden or
private are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I
would bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a
SpamAssassin check somehow.
Please don't, there are legitimate reasons to have private domain
At 10:32 PM 09/12/2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden or private
are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I would
bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a SpamAssassin
check somehow.
Please don't
45 matches
Mail list logo
