I'm not sure where you saw that message, but I got this message via email
after I submitted an unblock request with Spectrum Shield:
We have reviewed your request to unblock validin.com. This site was not
found to be blocked by Spectrum Shield and should be accessible from your
browser.
Bill is absolutely correct. The spammers lost their case because they
were demonstrably spammers.
No, really they did not. I read the decisions. Have you? Hint: under
CAN SPAM a great deal of spam is completely legal so it didn't matter.
We’ve had accidental black hole cases with *US*
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:54 PM Validin Axon wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> I'm not sure where you saw that message, but I got this
> message via email after I submitted an unblock request with Spectrum Shield:
Howdy,
That was Christopher, not me. But you should check the talos link I
sent you
Hi Bill,
I'm not sure where you saw that message, but I got this message via email
after I submitted an unblock request with Spectrum Shield:
> We have reviewed your request to unblock validin.com. This site was not
found to be blocked by Spectrum Shield and should be accessible from your
Bill is absolutely correct. The spammers lost their case because they were
demonstrably spammers. We’ve had accidental black hole cases with *US*
providers that removed the block once they received a C If they don’t have
iron clad proof in hand. (More than just a few complaints and no traffic
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM John R. Levine wrote:
> a complaint would have to show that the
> blocking was malicious rather than merited or accidental. In this case it
> seems probably accidental, but for all I know there might have been bad
> traffic to merit a block.
Hi John,
I'll try
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024, William Herrin wrote:
Respectfully, you're mistaken. Look up "tortious interference."
I'm familiar with it.
But I am also familar with many cases were spammers have sued network
operators claiming that they're falsely defamed, so the operator has to
deliver their mail.
“We checked the website you are trying to access for malicious and
spear-phishing content and found it likely to be unsafe.”
perhaps charter thinks there's a reason to not permit folks to access
a possibly dangerous site?
(it's also possible it just got cough up amongst some other stuff in
the
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 4:00 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that William Herrin said:
> >If you can't reach a technical POC, use the legal one. Your lawyer can
> The only response to a letter like that is "we run our network to
> serve our customers and manage it the way we think is best"
It appears that William Herrin said:
>On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:21 PM Validin Axon wrote:
>> Looking for some help/advice. Spectrum is sinkholing my company's domain,
>> validin[.]com, to 127.0.0.54.
>
>Howdy,
>
>If you can't reach a technical POC, use the legal one. Your lawyer can
>find the
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 7:35 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> Requesting responses to the following questions. Would be helpful in some
> IETF work in progress.
>
> Q1: Consider an AS peering relationship that is complex (or hybrid)
> meaning, for example,
Hi Mel,
I appreciate the suggestion. During my earlier research, I'd noticed that
as well. However, the DNS block includes all validin.com subdomains, covering
those on completely different ASNs. It also does NOT affect other domains
that resolve to the exact same IP addresses (e.g.,
I notice from MXToolbox.com that your domain’s IP address is on the
UCEPROTECTL3 blacklist.
This is a notoriously evil blacklist that charges people for removal. This may
be why Spectrum is blackholing your domain. Most respectable ISPs won’t use it.
But Spectrum…
There is no delisting
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 6:21 PM Validin Axon wrote:
> Looking for some help/advice. Spectrum is sinkholing my company's domain,
> validin[.]com, to 127.0.0.54.
Howdy,
If you can't reach a technical POC, use the legal one. Your lawyer can
find the appropriate recipient and write a
Requesting responses to the following questions. Would be helpful in some IETF
work in progress.
Q1: Consider an AS peering relationship that is complex (or hybrid) meaning,
for example, provider-to-customer (P2C) for one set of prefixes and lateral
peers (i.e., transit-free peer-to-peer
On 4/22/24 09:47, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
Assume that some carrier has 10k FBB subscribers in a particular municipality
(without any hope of considerably increasing this number).
2Mbps is the current average per household in the busy hour, pretty uniform
worldwide.
You could
Looking for some help/advice. Spectrum is sinkholing my company's domain,
validin[.]com, to 127.0.0.54. The sinkhole responses come from their
recursive DNS servers, 209.18.47.61 and 209.18.47.62, which are defaults
for and in use by many of their customers and are only reachable from
within the
Assume that some carrier has 10k FBB subscribers in a particular municipality
(without any hope of considerably increasing this number).
2Mbps is the current average per household in the busy hour, pretty uniform
worldwide.
You could multiply it by 8/7 if you like to add wireless -> not much
18 matches
Mail list logo
