New Class C's just lit on on AT&T, Email Marketing
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 11:34:37 CST 2009
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Michael Peddemors
<michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> It was mentioned that this might be offtopic for this list, however I did want
> to get a feel for the attitudes of network operators, in light of the recent
> discussions regarding the Russian Operators.. and blocking routing et al..
> At what point does it become an issue to the point where operators demand that
> others are responsible for the activiities coming from their networks?
I think this is fairly much off topic, but.. I'd say this:
1) did you send in proper complaints to att/Sbc for the activity you
allege comes from this ip block?
2) did you get back an auto-ack?
3) did this activity start prior to today? (looking at the headers in
the original post)
If so, then I'm sure ATT will do the right thing in the next little
while... they can't turn off (for a variety of reasons) a customer
that seems may have been 'ok' for 7 months time (judging by the
reg-date for the block in question) with only a single
Complaining about this on nanog-l certainly won't get any of your
concerns about this SBCIS customer addressed though.
(note I don't see in my personal spamtraps content from this address range)
More information about the NANOG