Request Removal
Frank X Bezak
Recently we have gotten rid of one of our largest problem clients.
Below is their IP space, and tehre are 184 Blocks.
I am requesting removal of any of these blocks from any list, because
i simply do not know how many SPEWS listings they are spread across.
Here are the blocks we are requesting removal. The customer is no
longer with us nor do they do any business with us. We are very glad
to see this finally come to an end.
Thank you in advance!
64.21.0.192/26
64.21.2.0/24
64.21.3.0/24
64.21.5.0/24
64.21.10.0/23
64.21.12.0/24
64.21.14.0/24
64.21.18.80/30
64.21.24.0/21
64.21.32.0/24
64.21.34.176/30
64.21.39.0/24
64.21.40.0/24
64.21.62.0/24
64.21.72.64/27
64.21.84.0/24
64.21.88.0/22
64.21.119.0/24
64.21.126.0/24
64.21.127.0/24
64.21.128.0/24
64.21.132.0/24
64.21.133.0/24
64.21.134.0/24
64.21.135.0/24
64.21.136.0/21
64.21.146.0/25
64.21.146.128/25
64.21.153.0/24
64.21.160.0/24
64.21.161.0/24
64.21.162.0/24
64.21.163.0/24
64.21.166.0/24
64.21.167.0/24
64.21.168.0/22
64.21.172.0/24
64.21.173.0/24
64.21.176.0/24
64.21.177.0/24
64.21.178.0/24
64.21.179.0/24
64.21.184.0/21
64.247.1.0/24
64.247.2.0/24
64.247.3.0/24
64.247.4.0/24
64.247.8.0/24
64.247.9.0/24
64.247.10.0/24
64.247.21.0/24
64.247.21.0/24
64.247.22.0/24
64.247.26.0/23
64.247.30.0/24
64.247.31.0/24
64.247.33.0/24
64.247.34.0/23
64.247.37.0/24
64.247.45.0/24
64.247.47.0/24
64.247.50.0/24
64.247.51.0/24
64.247.52.0/24
64.247.60.0/24
64.247.61.0/24
64.247.63.0/24
66.246.0.0/24
66.246.1.0/24
66.246.3.0/24
66.246.5.0/24
66.246.10.0/24
66.246.11.0/24
66.246.16.0/20
66.246.32.0/23
66.246.35.0/24
66.246.36.0/24
66.246.37.0/24
66.246.38.0/24
66.246.39.0/24
66.246.40.0/24
66.246.41.0/24
66.246.42.0/24
66.246.43.0/24
66.246.44.0/24
66.246.49.0/24
66.246.50.0/24
66.246.51.0/24
66.246.52.0/24
66.246.53.0/24
66.246.54.0/24
66.246.55.0/24
66.246.57.0/24
66.246.58.0/24
66.246.60.0/24
66.246.61.0/24
66.246.62.0/24
66.246.63.0/24
66.246.64.0/24
66.246.65.0/24
66.246.66.0/24
66.246.67.0/24
66.246.68.0/24
66.246.69.0/24
66.246.74.0/24
66.246.75.0/24
66.246.76.0/24
66.246.77.0/24
66.246.78.0/24
66.246.85.0/24
66.246.86.0/24
66.246.87.0/24
66.246.88.0/24
66.246.89.0/24
66.246.97.0/24
66.246.98.0/24
66.246.106.0/24
66.246.107.0/24
66.246.108.0/24
66.246.109.0/24
66.246.110.0/24
66.246.111.0/24
66.246.125.136/29
66.246.125.144/29
207.99.10.8/32
207.99.11.0/24
207.99.12.0/24
207.99.19.192/30
207.99.19.196/30
207.99.25.0/24
207.99.34.0/24
207.99.37.0/24
207.99.72.0/24
207.99.75.0/24
207.99.79.140/30
207.99.104.0/24
207.99.105.0/24
207.99.108.0/24
207.99.122.0/24
207.99.126.0/24
209.123.4.0/24
209.123.6.0/24
209.123.22.0/24
209.123.24.144/28
209.123.26.0/24
209.123.27.0/24
209.123.32.0/24
209.123.61.0/24
209.123.62.0/24
209.123.72.0/24
209.123.73.0/24
209.123.74.0/23
209.123.86.0/24
209.123.131.0/24
209.123.134.0/24
209.123.139.0/24
209.123.141.0/24
209.123.142.0/24
209.123.143.0/24
209.123.151.0/24
209.123.152.0/21
209.123.167.0/24
209.123.171.0/24
209.123.179.0/24
209.123.182.240/29
209.123.184.0/24
209.123.185.0/24
209.123.199.0/24
209.123.201.0/24
209.123.209.192/27
209.123.220.0/24
209.123.246.0/24
209.123.247.0/24
209.123.252.0/22
216.118.65.0/24
216.118.66.0/23
216.118.72.0/21
216.118.98.0/24
216.118.107.0/24
216.118.108.0/24
216.118.112.0/22
216.118.121.0/24
216.118.123.0/24
216.118.124.0/22
--
Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
Dave Platt
Frank X Bezak <pro...@nac.net> wrote:
>Recently we have gotten rid of one of our largest problem clients.
>Below is their IP space, and tehre are 184 Blocks.
Currently your own WHOIS server is still reporting that these blocks
are allocated to Pegasus Web Technologies.
If you have in fact ceased providing services to Pegasus, I would
suggest that you immediately bring your WHOIS database up to date.
Otherwise, people could quite reasonably suspect you of continuing to
support this customer.
>I am requesting removal of any of these blocks from any list, because
>i simply do not know how many SPEWS listings they are spread across.
>
>Here are the blocks we are requesting removal. The customer is no
>longer with us nor do they do any business with us. We are very glad
>to see this finally come to an end.
It ain't over until it's over, and as your (authoritative) WHOIS
server still asserts that these are Pegasus blocks, I don't think it's
over yet.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
news:amo9j0lj8cis0cf6n...@4ax.com:
> Recently we have gotten rid of one of our largest problem clients.
> Below is their IP space, and tehre are 184 Blocks.
Frank, I'm speechless. When did you get religion?
> I am requesting removal of any of these blocks from any list, because
> i simply do not know how many SPEWS listings they are spread across.
Understandable - but I would recommend you obtain the zone file and grep for
your IPs.
--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.
axlq
Frank X Bezak <pro...@nac.net> wrote:
>Recently we have gotten rid of one of our largest problem clients.
>Below is their IP space, and tehre are 184 Blocks.
>I am requesting removal of any of these blocks from any list, because
>i simply do not know how many SPEWS listings they are spread across.
>
>Here are the blocks we are requesting removal. The customer is no
>longer with us nor do they do any business with us. We are very glad
>to see this finally come to an end.
[massive list snipped]
Which spammer was that? From hunting a couple of those numbers,
looks like pwebtech.com just got booted by nac.net? Or am I reading
it wrong?
Wow.
[pardon while I check outside for flying pigs and pink elephants...]
Now why don't you go after your SBL listings? You have two ROKSO
spammers that you're still hosting, and weren't on the list you posted.
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=nac.net
-A
Frank X Bezak
No You are reading right. Those ranges were routed to Pwebtech and
you will probably see them stillpointint to whois simply because I
have not removed them out of whois yet because we are unsure what to
do with these blocks yet. They will probably be recirculated, but I
want to make sure they are clean first.
Rest assured, this customer is no longer with NAC.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:10:45 GMT, Frank X Bezak <pro...@nac.net>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Recently we have gotten rid of one of our largest problem clients.
>Below is their IP space, and tehre are 184 Blocks.
>I am requesting removal of any of these blocks from any list, because
>i simply do not know how many SPEWS listings they are spread across.
>
>Here are the blocks we are requesting removal. The customer is no
>longer with us nor do they do any business with us. We are very glad
>to see this finally come to an end.
>
>Thank you in advance!
phil-new...@ipal.net
| No You are reading right. Those ranges were routed to Pwebtech and
| you will probably see them stillpointint to whois simply because I
| have not removed them out of whois yet because we are unsure what to
| do with these blocks yet. They will probably be recirculated, but I
| want to make sure they are clean first.
|
| Rest assured, this customer is no longer with NAC.
You really need to go ahead anre remove them from the WHOIS or change
it to say the addresses are unassigned or whatever. People are not
going to believe you if your operation is sloppy like that.
Got a customer relation and provisioning database? If so, use it to
derive data such as whois. Then when the customer is deactivated in
the database, or otherwise assignments are changed, the whois changes
to track it (as do other things like reverse DNS) without you having
to worry about it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socks the white house cat
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting will discover that Frank X Bezak
<pro...@nac.net> had this to say on 02 Sep 2004:
>
> No You are reading right. Those ranges were routed to Pwebtech and
> you will probably see them stillpointint to whois simply because I
> have not removed them out of whois yet because we are unsure what to
> do with these blocks yet. They will probably be recirculated, but I
> want to make sure they are clean first.
>
point it to SPEWS or some other anti spam site.
--
I AM SPEWS (SLAPP PREVENTION ELECTRONIC WHITENOISE SYSTEM)
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
George W. Bush 8/5/04
Seth Breidbart
Frank X Bezak <pro...@nac.net> wrote:
>
>No You are reading right. Those ranges were routed to Pwebtech and
>you will probably see them stillpointint to whois simply because I
>have not removed them out of whois yet because we are unsure what to
>do with these blocks yet. They will probably be recirculated, but I
>want to make sure they are clean first.
Set the rDNS to good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish.invalid or some such.
Swip the ranges the same way. traceroute to those addresses should
end with something similar. Any possible way of asking any question
about those addresses should give the same answer "The fat lady has
left the stage."
Seth
LartPuppy
> No You are reading right. Those ranges were routed to Pwebtech and
> you will probably see them stillpointint to whois simply because I
> have not removed them out of whois yet because we are unsure what to
> do with these blocks yet. They will probably be recirculated, but I
> want to make sure they are clean first.
>
> Rest assured, this customer is no longer with NAC.
That's a step in the right direction, but the real test of an ISP is
whether they are willing to kick out spammers who are reported to them
*before* they get listed in blacklists. www.thermalcal.com was
reported to you early this week, and I see they are still up and
running at 64.21.63.5. Not a good sign.