mailing list archives
Re: 18.104.22.168/8 - Please update your filters
From: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:23:06 +0000 (GMT)
SS> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:46:53 -0600
SS> From: Stephen Sprunk
(Props to whoever thought up what you put in the "To" field)
SS> From an academic standpoint, that would be a very interesting
SS> experiment. However, most of us are paid to keep our
SS> networks or services running, not to intentionally break
I see. So you advocate innocent 69/8 users suffering because you
don't want to cause pain for the lazy and inept? I'd rather see
the latter paying for their sins, not innocent third parties.
Note that my suggestions (credit to Jeff Wheeler for suggesting
roots in new IP allocations) would break NOTHING on a properly-
Let's put it this way: 69/8 evidently is still being filtered by
some, despite pleading and time. Things _will_ break. This
won't be the last time we encounter new allocations, either.
_Someone_ will feel pain.
Who do you feel should bear the brunt? How do you propose to
make it happen?
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist () brics com>
To: blacklist () brics com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist () brics com>, or you are likely to
Re: 22.214.171.124/8 - Please update your filters Jack Bates (Feb 26)