nanog mailing list archives
Re: de-peering for security sake
From: Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:54:09 -0500
Speaking as a former DNSBL operator, NANOG has a poor history of dealing with those who report abuse as well. On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote:why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse reports, normal slow speed network abuse is tolerated, but not high speed deliberate abuse albeit compromised machinesThis is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most ISPs do not respond to abuse reports. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: de-peering for security sake, (continued)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Lee (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Baldur Norddahl (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Clayton Zekelman (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake TR Shaw (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Andrew Kirch (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Jared Mauch (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Hugo Slabbert (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Colin Johnston (Dec 26)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Nick Hilliard (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Daniel Corbe (Dec 25)
- Re: de-peering for security sake Mike Hammett (Dec 25)
