what policy of spamhaus listing
eya...@gmail.com
outside people do not have the right or judgement of why a specific BL
should block you. Some BLs are even very aggresive of just block the
whole country.
But I am curious why, SBL28426, should be valid.
I agree the policy when mail server sending spam, open-relay,
open-proxy, zombie, spam-adverstised website/webserver should be
blocked. But I don't understand why a ISP hosting spam-advertised
website will affect other ISP.
HKABC.NET is another individual ISP, through they do not have its AS,
they have their own mail server, web-site/hosting, modem pool, IPs,
location, office, etc....all Pacific Internet Hong Kong (PIHK) do is to
provide the routing to them. But PIHK network including its mail
server is listed at spamhaus because PIHK provide connection to HKABC!?
Should spamhaus block the IP ranges of HKABC, but not PIHK. We cannot
control of anything done by HKABC.
Do spamhaus block MCI mail servers/networks because it provide
connections to other ISPs which contain spam website allocation? I
don't think it is fair. If it is the fair case, spamhaus should also
block MCI, T-system, Reach, ... networks because they provide
connections to PIHK.
Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you decide to have a
blocking?
A system admin
--
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.
Bill Carton - (The Roadie)
>OK, I know the listing policy of any BL is made by its owner, and
>outside people do not have the right or judgement of why a specific BL
>should block you. Some BLs are even very aggresive of just block the
>whole country.
And the blocklists are used by network owners who believe in the policies
of the list. As the SBL FAQ says:
"Who uses the SBL?
The SBL is used by many of the world's Internet backbones, large
tier-1 providers and ISPs in all countries, including a number of large
U.S. and European government and military networks, and some of the best
giant free email providers. Most large SBL subscribers, universities and
corporations (which include major banks, aerospace and electronics) have
hourly SBL Data Feeds. The combined SBL user base (mailboxes protected by
the SBL) now exceeds 480 Million internet users*.
* as at 20 June the SBL user base was 483,074,000 internet users.
Companies marketing anti-spam software and hardware gateways have also
incorporated an SBL feed into their products where it helps protect their
customers by identifying worldwide spam sources."
>
>But I am curious why, SBL28426, should be valid.
It reflects the truth that you are providing aid and comfort to the enemy:
"Spam Services
Spammers' mail servers, web servers, DNS and other servers used in
spamming.
Spam Support Services
Services providing 'bullet-proof' hosting for spam service purposes,
serving 'spamware' sites, or knowingly providing services for spam service
purposes."
>
>I agree the policy when mail server sending spam, open-relay,
>open-proxy, zombie, spam-adverstised website/webserver should be
>blocked. But I don't understand why a ISP hosting spam-advertised
>website will affect other ISP.
It is clearly explained at the SBL page
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl-rationale.html
Hosting web sites advertised by spam ENCOURAGES and ENABLES them to make
money from spamming. If they had no web sites to advertise by spam, there
would be much less spam.
All ethical and legitimate ISPs have discovered that they need the
cooperation of their peers to exist on the shared resource of the Internet.
By hosting spam-advertised web sites, you and HKABC.NET have declared
yourselves to be not worthy of trust by your peers.
>
>HKABC.NET is another individual ISP, through they do not have its AS,
>they have their own mail server, web-site/hosting, modem pool, IPs,
>location, office, etc....all Pacific Internet Hong Kong (PIHK) do is to
>provide the routing to them. But PIHK network including its mail
>server is listed at spamhaus because PIHK provide connection to HKABC!?
Exactly. You ignored warnings and abuse reports. Now you're listed. Do
something.
The record is clear what you have to do:
"Pacific Supernet Limited AS2706 is allowing spammers to operate
persistently on its network, ignoring a multitude of warnings from many
spam victims as well as mail from Spamhaus. Pacific Supernet Limited must
remove the spammers and implement procedures to deal promptly with spam
reports in the future."
Were you not reading your abuse mail?
>
>Should spamhaus block the IP ranges of HKABC, but not PIHK. We cannot
>control of anything done by HKABC.
Nonsense. You provide routing. You could threaten to pull the plug. Or live
with the blocklisting. Your choice.
>
>Do spamhaus block MCI mail servers/networks because it provide
>connections to other ISPs which contain spam website allocation? I
>don't think it is fair. If it is the fair case, spamhaus should also
>block MCI, T-system, Reach, ... networks because they provide
>connections to PIHK.
All in good time. Why not address the issues of why you believe in an
outdated and illogical theory, that hosting web sites advertised in spam is
OK. It has NOT been OK for over ten years, and it's been acknowledged by
ethical providers for at least five years that spammer hosting is a bad
thing.
>
>Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you decide to have a
>blocking?
Their policy is clear, in their web pages and in their listing record. And
483,074,000 users agree.
You need to change your own thinking and get with the program. Boot the
spammers or pull the plug on HKABC.NET. You have very few choices at this
time, since you chose to ignore valid notifications from Spamhaus. Why did
management choose to do that, you should ask.
--
Bill "the Roadie" Carton
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
news:18nac15tv92tu1im7...@4ax.com:
> You need to change your own thinking and get with the program. Boot the
> spammers or pull the plug on HKABC.NET.
Now that spam *from* HKABC.NET has managed to get into SpamBlocked.com
servers, I have locally firewalled out all contact with HKABC and their
upstream, PIHK(1) - the full IP space. That's email, Web, ftp, etc.
This policy will be reviewed in 2015, and not before.
(1) I can't help noticing how close that is to "pink."
--
Email, Smarthosting, Web hosting for individuals and business:
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
"I ran the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and now Windows is gone!"
eya...@gmail.com
>
> It reflects the truth that you are providing aid and comfort to the enemy:
>
> "Spam Services
> Spammers' mail servers, web servers, DNS and other servers used in
> spamming.
>
PIHK do not provide the above services to HKABC. HKABC have its own IP
ranges ,which got from APNIC, and do the above services by themselves.
> Spam Support Services
> Services providing 'bullet-proof' hosting for spam service purposes,
> serving 'spamware' sites, or knowingly providing services for spam service
> purposes."
> >
PIHK do not provide the "hosting" of spam service to HKABC too. And
HKABC, as liked of other ISP, have its own ISP services more than
spam-advertised web services. And PIHK will not know and have no
interference (ok, as you said, otherthan we can pull the plug) to
HKABC's own policies to its services. HKABC have its own report abuse
mail address. PIHK do not know if they will take the action or not.
If they have taken the action, PIHK will also don't know.
> >I agree the policy when mail server sending spam, open-relay,
> >open-proxy, zombie, spam-adverstised website/webserver should be
> >blocked. But I don't understand why a ISP hosting spam-advertised
> >website will affect other ISP.
>
> It is clearly explained at the SBL page
> http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl-rationale.html
>
just read, but which criteria in effect will result the PIHK ip ranges
will be blocked? spam-advertised hosting machine and its IPs are owned
by HKABC, but not PIHK. Spamhaus, which is extending its power, to
force PIHK to pull the plug, which the action will affect all those
innocent users at HKABC. And HKABC and its legitimate user might have
the right to charge or claim loss from the PIHK.
> Hosting web sites advertised by spam ENCOURAGES and ENABLES them to make
> money from spamming. If they had no web sites to advertise by spam, there
> would be much less spam.
>
> All ethical and legitimate ISPs have discovered that they need the
> cooperation of their peers to exist on the shared resource of the Internet.
> By hosting spam-advertised web sites, you and HKABC.NET have declared
> yourselves to be not worthy of trust by your peers.
> >
Same, It is their own HKABC IP which hosts the spam-advertised web
site, but not PIHK. We do terminate website of PIHK if PIHK find its
customer spam out.
> >HKABC.NET is another individual ISP, through they do not have its AS,
> >they have their own mail server, web-site/hosting, modem pool, IPs,
> >location, office, etc....all Pacific Internet Hong Kong (PIHK) do is to
> >provide the routing to them. But PIHK network including its mail
> >server is listed at spamhaus because PIHK provide connection to HKABC!?
>
> Exactly. You ignored warnings and abuse reports. Now you're listed. Do
> something.
>
We can have the last method of only pull the plug, right? Just like if
there is only one terrorist inside innocent people and all the innocent
should be bombed?
> The record is clear what you have to do:
>
> "Pacific Supernet Limited AS2706 is allowing spammers to operate
> persistently on its network, ignoring a multitude of warnings from many
> spam victims as well as mail from Spamhaus. Pacific Supernet Limited must
> remove the spammers and implement procedures to deal promptly with spam
> reports in the future."
>
> Were you not reading your abuse mail?
Do you help transfer the call if someone have the wrong number? We do
read abuse emails, and do action if it is related to PIHK IPs.
Spamhaus should report abuse to hkabc. Spamhaus should only dial to
HKABC. Spamhaus now force a conference call to PIHK only because PIHK
provide foods to HKABC for trade. And Spamhaus shout to kill the food
trader if food trader provide food for innocent.
> >Do spamhaus block MCI mail servers/networks because it provide
> >connections to other ISPs which contain spam website allocation? I
> >don't think it is fair. If it is the fair case, spamhaus should also
> >block MCI, T-system, Reach, ... networks because they provide
> >connections to PIHK.
>
> All in good time. Why not address the issues of why you believe in an
> outdated and illogical theory, that hosting web sites advertised in spam is
> OK. It has NOT been OK for over ten years, and it's been acknowledged by
> ethical providers for at least five years that spammer hosting is a bad
> thing.
I am NOT saying spam advertised website is ok! It is absolutely not
OK! PIHK do not provide spam advertised website. We have to
differentiate terrorist and innocent, not just one cut. I am asking
why Tier 1 provider have the bonus of not being blocked the whole
network if it have a connection to ISP contain a spamadvertised site.
Is it because Tier 1 are so big that spamhaus is afraid of and in other
turn being blocked by Tier 1? OK, I know, spamhaus now got it power of
so called 4XXXXXXXX user base, now this turn spamhaus win, and whatever
they can do now. OK, Monopoly is good, Big is good. Size does matter!
> >
> >Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you decide to have a
> >blocking?
>
> Their policy is clear, in their web pages and in their listing record. And
> 483,074,000 users agree.
>
> You need to change your own thinking and get with the program. Boot the
> spammers or pull the plug on HKABC.NET. You have very few choices at this
> time, since you chose to ignore valid notifications from Spamhaus. Why did
> management choose to do that, you should ask.
Few choice? PIHK have no choice but to bomb the innocent, or killed by
another type of terrorist. I am not the chooser. In fact, in my
opinion, I don't like abc too, but I do like innocent.
lart...@yahoo.com
eya...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, I know the listing policy of any BL is made by its owner, and
> outside people do not have the right or judgement of why a specific BL
> should block you. Some BLs are even very aggresive of just block the
> whole country.
>
> But I am curious why, SBL28426, should be valid.
>
> I agree the policy when mail server sending spam, open-relay,
> open-proxy, zombie, spam-adverstised website/webserver should be
> blocked. But I don't understand why a ISP hosting spam-advertised
> website will affect other ISP.
>
> HKABC.NET is another individual ISP, through they do not have its AS,
> they have their own mail server, web-site/hosting, modem pool, IPs,
> location, office, etc....all Pacific Internet Hong Kong (PIHK) do is to
> provide the routing to them. But PIHK network including its mail
> server is listed at spamhaus because PIHK provide connection to HKABC!?
I cannot speak for Spamhaus, but it seems reasonable that if it is
*your* AS, then you are ultimately responsible for *everything* that
happens on that AS.
> Should spamhaus block the IP ranges of HKABC, but not PIHK. We cannot
> control of anything done by HKABC.
That is not true -- you can control HKABC by telling them that you will
cut them off if they do not stop their support of criminal spamming
activities. If you cut them off, then I'm sure Spamhaus will delist
you (even if they find connectivity from somebody else).
> Do spamhaus block MCI mail servers/networks because it provide
> connections to other ISPs which contain spam website allocation? I
> don't think it is fair. If it is the fair case, spamhaus should also
> block MCI, T-system, Reach, ... networks because they provide
> connections to PIHK.
That could happen eventually if PIHK continues to support the
spam-support operation at HKABC. It seems like before taking that next
step Spamhaus is giving you a chance to clean up your AS. If Spamhaus
ever decides that your AS is completely pro-spam (like your HKABC
customer seems to be), then it would not be surprising to see SBL
listings for those who provide connections to your AS.
cu...@chicagonet.net
>Spamhaus, which is extending its power,
>to force PIHK to pull the plug, which the action will affect all those
>innocent users at HKABC. And HKABC and its legitimate user might have
>the right to charge or claim loss from the PIHK.
And this is _our_ problem because......... ?
When you sleep with pigs you can expect to be porked.
>Few choice? PIHK have no choice but to bomb the innocent, or killed by
>another type of terrorist.
They have the choice of exerting their "power" over HKABC.NET by telling
them they can either stop being a spam facilitative parasite immediately
or they'll lose their connectivity with PIHK. You're blaming the
messenger. Like or not PIHK is responsible for the actions of their
downstream customers. Whining about that here will not change this.
If you don't like Spamhaus, you're gonna _hate_ SPEWS...
eya...@gmail.com
> > HKABC.NET is another individual ISP, through they do not have its AS,
> > they have their own mail server, web-site/hosting, modem pool, IPs,
> > location, office, etc....all Pacific Internet Hong Kong (PIHK) do is to
> > provide the routing to them. But PIHK network including its mail
> > server is listed at spamhaus because PIHK provide connection to HKABC!?
>
> I cannot speak for Spamhaus, but it seems reasonable that if it is
> *your* AS, then you are ultimately responsible for *everything* that
> happens on that AS.
AS means what? AS only mean a organisation have a ASN which can be
applied from APNIC in asia, and then talk with BGP. It is even no such
a scarce resources than applying a range of IP addresses. ASN even do
not mean of any IP address. Any class C or larger of IP addresses can
be bounded to any ASN and then get route with BGP with any uplink. AS
doesn't mean if one is not a individual ISP if she do not have a ASN.
PIHK is just out of luck just because HKABC do not have the ASN? It
should not the case.
Moreover, normal user will just know who is spamming out/virus out by
the IP address shown in the headers and report spamming to the owner of
the IPs, but not ASN. Same, PIHK, like any upstream provider, will not
know the severity of the spamming problem because it is not directly
report by abuse@hkabc, or any loop back acknowledgement. It may means
it lack of sufficient information to do the action. Say virus
infection, I can immediately pull out the plug of any individual user
or stop radius of our IP, immediately call the client to fix the
problem. But now if the downstream ISP's customer infect a virus, do I
just pull the plug immediately of the downstream ISP link because a
downstream's customer just infect a virus, because one BL report this
is your ASN, and should be responsible for this?
How spamhaus define which IP should be responsible now? It is clearly
spamhaus define it by ASN, but not the owner of the IPs. You are not a
ISP if you do not have a ASN according to its own eyes of spamhaus.
Come on, PIHK do not have the authority to change the APNIC whois
contact to abuse@pacific of those owned by HKABC.
>
> > Should spamhaus block the IP ranges of HKABC, but not PIHK. We cannot
> > control of anything done by HKABC.
>
> That is not true -- you can control HKABC by telling them that you will
> cut them off if they do not stop their support of criminal spamming
> activities. If you cut them off, then I'm sure Spamhaus will delist
> you (even if they find connectivity from somebody else).
>
In your country, it may be the criminal activities for spamming. Hong
Kong do not yet have the law enforcement of the abusive use until the
next year. Thus, PIHK may not have much excuse to unplug. All advanced
commericial world are bound by contract (I don't know the contract)
such as service guarantee, monthly or yearly contract, etc, which may
take time to negotiate for the unplug, not to mention the time the
management decise. I think spamhaus is too harsh to immediately put
all the responsibilities to PIHK and go away for weekend without
response.
> > Do spamhaus block MCI mail servers/networks because it provide
> > connections to other ISPs which contain spam website allocation? I
> > don't think it is fair. If it is the fair case, spamhaus should also
> > block MCI, T-system, Reach, ... networks because they provide
> > connections to PIHK.
>
> That could happen eventually if PIHK continues to support the
> spam-support operation at HKABC. It seems like before taking that next
> step Spamhaus is giving you a chance to clean up your AS. If Spamhaus
> ever decides that your AS is completely pro-spam (like your HKABC
> customer seems to be), then it would not be surprising to see SBL
> listings for those who provide connections to your AS.
>
Spamhaus do not provide the chance for PIHK to duel with HKABC.
Spamhaus did not show us the result of blocking the PIHK core network
before taking the action, none of their faq shown this. I am not sure
HKABC is pro-spam or not, and it should be the benefit of the doubt.
And I am not sure they know the severity of its customer spamming
activities. If HKABC know, I don't know if they are willing to rectify
and other parties give the chance to them. But I just feel Spamhaus is
afraid of BIG and kicking small, and they do not know the real world
situation.
Bill Carton - (The Roadie)
>PIHK do not provide the "hosting" of spam service to HKABC too. And
>HKABC, as liked of other ISP, have its own ISP services more than
>spam-advertised web services. And PIHK will not know and have no
>interference (ok, as you said, otherthan we can pull the plug) to
>HKABC's own policies to its services. HKABC have its own report abuse
>mail address. PIHK do not know if they will take the action or not.
>If they have taken the action, PIHK will also don't know.
HKABC is ignoring reports about their spammers. You hold a cable to HKABC.
They should listen to you when you call them and demand they delete the
spammers.
Have you called them yet? You will know when they take action because you
should demand to know. Or else you should pull the plug, yes. Or live with
the SBL listing.
>just read, but which criteria in effect will result the PIHK ip ranges
>will be blocked? spam-advertised hosting machine and its IPs are owned
>by HKABC, but not PIHK. Spamhaus, which is extending its power, to
>force PIHK to pull the plug, which the action will affect all those
>innocent users at HKABC. And HKABC and its legitimate user might have
>the right to charge or claim loss from the PIHK.
So call HKABC and demand they remove their spammers. Why have you not
called them yet?
>Same, It is their own HKABC IP which hosts the spam-advertised web
>site, but not PIHK. We do terminate website of PIHK if PIHK find its
>customer spam out.
Excellent. And that policy should also extend to anyone you hold the plug
for. You provide connectivity. It is your cable. So your policy should
apply. Make them listen to you. They certainly are not listening to
Spamhaus or the rest of the outraged Internet.
>We can have the last method of only pull the plug, right?
Exactly! You understand now. You can force them to get rid of the spammers.
Please do that. Soon.
Surely you don't want them to sit there and keep the spammers?!?
> Just like if
>there is only one terrorist inside innocent people and all the innocent
>should be bombed?
Terrorism is not the same as spamming. And the other customers of HKABC are
not totally innocent because they are paying money to a spam-friendly ISP
and allowing it to live. Spam-friendly ISPs deserve to go out of business,
not live. Or to be educated by pressure brought on by SPamhaus and by YOU.
>Do you help transfer the call if someone have the wrong number? We do
>read abuse emails, and do action if it is related to PIHK IPs.
There's your trouble. You also have to take action if the spam report
concerns a cable you provide.
>Spamhaus should report abuse to hkabc. Spamhaus should only dial to
>HKABC. Spamhaus now force a conference call to PIHK only because PIHK
>provide foods to HKABC for trade. And Spamhaus shout to kill the food
>trader if food trader provide food for innocent.
That's another better analogy. Spamhaus tried to talk to HKABC. They
refused to take action. When you call, with their cable in your hand, ready
to pull the plug, they might listen. They would be crazy to ignore you.
>
>I am NOT saying spam advertised website is ok! It is absolutely not
>OK! PIHK do not provide spam advertised website. We have to
>differentiate terrorist and innocent, not just one cut. I am asking
>why Tier 1 provider have the bonus of not being blocked the whole
>network if it have a connection to ISP contain a spamadvertised site.
>Is it because Tier 1 are so big that spamhaus is afraid of and in other
>turn being blocked by Tier 1? OK, I know, spamhaus now got it power of
>so called 4XXXXXXXX user base, now this turn spamhaus win, and whatever
>they can do now. OK, Monopoly is good, Big is good. Size does matter!
If you don't care that you are listed, then you can ignore Spamhaus. If you
care, and Spamhaus knows you hold the cable for HKABC, they're asking you
to enforce your no-spam policy on the cable to HKABC.
>
>Few choice? PIHK have no choice but to bomb the innocent, or killed by
>another type of terrorist. I am not the chooser. In fact, in my
>opinion, I don't like abc too, but I do like innocent.
Then join the fight on the side of the good, ethical connectivity providers
and call on HKABC to get rid of the spammers.
You need to choose sides. There are no longer any pure innocents in the
spam war. HKABC non-spamming customers are supporting a spam-friendly ISP,
and are no longer totally innocent. Just like PIHK is no longer innocent
since you provide a cable to HKABC.
Why is it so hard to make that phone call? Does Hong Kong in general wish
to be known as a spam-friendly place? Is that what the government wants? I
don't think so.
--
Bill "the Roadie" Carton
--
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> AS means what? AS only mean a organisation have a ASN
> which can be applied from APNIC in asia, and then talk
> with BGP. It is even no such a scarce resources than
> applying a range of IP addresses. ASN even do not mean
> of any IP address. Any class C or larger of IP
> addresses can be bounded to any ASN and then get route
> with BGP with any uplink. AS doesn't mean if one is not
> a individual ISP if she do not have a ASN. PIHK is just
> out of luck just because HKABC do not have the ASN? It
> should not the case.
We (I) escalate BlackLists, IP -> SubNet -> AS.
We (I) do hold the upstream responsible for routing the abuse.
> Moreover, normal user will just know who is spamming
> out/virus out by the IP address shown in the headers and
> report spamming to the owner of the IPs, but not ASN.
> Same, PIHK, like any upstream provider, will not know
> the severity of the spamming problem because it is not
> directly report by abuse@hkabc, or any loop back
> acknowledgement.
Now that you have referenced the Spamhaus record; you can no
longer claim you don't know.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Griffin-Technologies.net>
will be added to the BlackLists.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you
> decide to have a blocking?
Why ask here?
Talk to them directly: http://tinyurl.com/7cngz
<BlockQuote>
To have record SBL28426 (202.14.67.0/24) removed from the
SBL, the Abuse/Security representative of pacific.net.hk
(or the Internet Service Provider responsible for
connectivity to 202.14.67.0/24) needs to contact the SBL
Team to explain how the spam problem has been terminated.
If the spam problem that caused this listing has been
terminated we will normally remove the listing from the SBL.
If you are a representative of pacific.net.hk, you also need to see this:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=pacific.net.hk
Found 15 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of pacific.net.hk
3 Listings are known spam gangs with ROKSO records
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28426
202.14.67.0/24 pacific.net.hk
01-Jul-2005 01:36 GMT pacific.net.hk / hkabc.com corporate server escalation
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28409
202.64.76.56/32 pacific.net.hk
29-Jun-2005 23:09 GMT Andrew Westmoreland
surffreedom.net
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28324
202.73.247.180/32 pacific.net.hk
26-Jun-2005 05:38 GMT penis enlargement pills (hkabc.net)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28272
203.120.83.48/32 pacific.net.hk
22-Jun-2005 20:52 GMT srpl.net
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28241
202.73.247.220/32 pacific.net.hk
21-Jun-2005 21:25 GMT Michael Lindsay / iMedia Networks
xrefi.net, etc (hkabc.net)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL28205
202.64.76.57/32 pacific.net.hk
20-Jun-2005 01:19 GMT Bill Waggoner
jobyour.com
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL27860
202.73.247.188/31 pacific.net.hk
08-Jun-2005 04:42 GMT girlinterest.com (hkabc.net)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL27487
202.73.247.254/32 pacific.net.hk
29-May-2005 23:32 GMT 2000-mortgage.net / magnum-shop.com (hkabc.net)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL26304
202.65.96.0/22 pacific.net.hk
22-Apr-2005 17:52 GMT Months of hosting spammers on HKABC.NET
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL26015
202.73.247.0/24 pacific.net.hk
14-Apr-2005 19:53 GMT ORDERTOWNZ.COM ; you-like-sex.com (hkabc.net)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL25940
202.64.60.176/29 pacific.net.hk
12-Apr-2005 01:35 GMT Corporate server escalation - spammer hosting
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL23512
210.17.159.7/32 pacific.net.hk
04-Feb-2005 01:14 GMT www.octopustravel.com (source)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL23511
210.17.184.134/32 pacific.net.hk
04-Feb-2005 01:13 GMT www.octopustravel.com
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL18060
202.64.174.224/27 pacific.net.hk
19-Jul-2004 11:16 GMT Apple Express Ltd - eight8.com
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL17552
210.17.142.203/32 pacific.net.hk
27-Jun-2004 10:04 GMT 203.142.17.210.dyn.pacific.net.hk
</BlockQuote>
Looks like plenty of reasons to list pacific.net.hk
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Griffin-Technologies.net>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
eya...@gmail.com
Bill Carton - (The Roadie) wrote:
> HKABC is ignoring reports about their spammers. You hold a cable to HKABC.
> They should listen to you when you call them and demand they delete the
> spammers.
>
> Have you called them yet? You will know when they take action because you
> should demand to know. Or else you should pull the plug, yes. Or live with
> the SBL listing.
>
Just HKABC ignore Spamhaus report and let PIHK bear all the
responsibilities without showing the result of the blocking, is it
fare? At least spamhaus should show us what it is going to do, ok I
know, spamhaus are big, and can do whatever it want, judgement is
spamhaus, police is spamhaus, governing is spamhaus.
Spamhaus doesn't show considerate to block PIHK at WEEKEND. Soon we
will call, after those upper management meeting, how to duel with
HKABC, how we talk...it all take time....however, spamhaus didn't show
us the result before PIHK have a chance to talk?
> >just read, but which criteria in effect will result the PIHK ip ranges
> >will be blocked? spam-advertised hosting machine and its IPs are owned
> >by HKABC, but not PIHK. Spamhaus, which is extending its power, to
> >force PIHK to pull the plug, which the action will affect all those
> >innocent users at HKABC. And HKABC and its legitimate user might have
> >the right to charge or claim loss from the PIHK.
>
> So call HKABC and demand they remove their spammers. Why have you not
> called them yet?
>
It is still weekend. Be patient, commander.
> >Same, It is their own HKABC IP which hosts the spam-advertised web
> >site, but not PIHK. We do terminate website of PIHK if PIHK find its
> >customer spam out.
>
> Excellent. And that policy should also extend to anyone you hold the plug
> for. You provide connectivity. It is your cable. So your policy should
> apply. Make them listen to you. They certainly are not listening to
> Spamhaus or the rest of the outraged Internet.
>
Who will know HKABC listen to us? Contract was defined. Just pull out
the plug and what if they call police? Then what?
> >We can have the last method of only pull the plug, right?
>
> Exactly! You understand now. You can force them to get rid of the spammers.
> Please do that. Soon.
>
> Surely you don't want them to sit there and keep the spammers?!?
>
I am just a small potato and made the mail server running. Thus I hate
spammers, virus...But I know I have to considerate to allow someone to
rectify the problem. Not just, "I am the commander, just do it, bomb
them immediately!".
> > Just like if
> >there is only one terrorist inside innocent people and all the innocent
> >should be bombed?
>
> Terrorism is not the same as spamming. And the other customers of HKABC are
> not totally innocent because they are paying money to a spam-friendly ISP
> and allowing it to live. Spam-friendly ISPs deserve to go out of business,
> not live. Or to be educated by pressure brought on by SPamhaus and by YOU.
>
Do a average user know what the best or worst of their ISP services,
nonsense.
Innocent is Innocent. PIHK's customer is innocent too when they find
problem sending the mails. If your logic correct, why doesn't the
innocents get out of all the terrors and send them to US court? It is
the responsibility of the innocent to turn over their bad government,
not doing this is helping the bad government, bomb them!
> >Do you help transfer the call if someone have the wrong number? We do
> >read abuse emails, and do action if it is related to PIHK IPs.
>
> There's your trouble. You also have to take action if the spam report
> concerns a cable you provide.
>
Then why not CC to all PIHK upstreams all and block them all...Show the
brave.
> >Spamhaus should report abuse to hkabc. Spamhaus should only dial to
> >HKABC. Spamhaus now force a conference call to PIHK only because PIHK
> >provide foods to HKABC for trade. And Spamhaus shout to kill the food
> >trader if food trader provide food for innocent.
>
> That's another better analogy. Spamhaus tried to talk to HKABC. They
> refused to take action. When you call, with their cable in your hand, ready
> to pull the plug, they might listen. They would be crazy to ignore you.
> >
Who knows? they can still send lawyer first, to first stop the unplug,
if invalid of the contract.
> >I am NOT saying spam advertised website is ok! It is absolutely not
> >OK! PIHK do not provide spam advertised website. We have to
> >differentiate terrorist and innocent, not just one cut. I am asking
> >why Tier 1 provider have the bonus of not being blocked the whole
> >network if it have a connection to ISP contain a spamadvertised site.
> >Is it because Tier 1 are so big that spamhaus is afraid of and in other
> >turn being blocked by Tier 1? OK, I know, spamhaus now got it power of
> >so called 4XXXXXXXX user base, now this turn spamhaus win, and whatever
> >they can do now. OK, Monopoly is good, Big is good. Size does matter!
>
> If you don't care that you are listed, then you can ignore Spamhaus. If you
> care, and Spamhaus knows you hold the cable for HKABC, they're asking you
> to enforce your no-spam policy on the cable to HKABC.
PIHK enforce no-spam policy of its IPs. I am not sure the enforcement
valid for downstream.
> >
> >Few choice? PIHK have no choice but to bomb the innocent, or killed by
> >another type of terrorist. I am not the chooser. In fact, in my
> >opinion, I don't like abc too, but I do like innocent.
>
> Then join the fight on the side of the good, ethical connectivity providers
> and call on HKABC to get rid of the spammers.
>
> You need to choose sides. There are no longer any pure innocents in the
> spam war. HKABC non-spamming customers are supporting a spam-friendly ISP,
> and are no longer totally innocent. Just like PIHK is no longer innocent
> since you provide a cable to HKABC.
>
Same as above...not repeat...I know, bomb them. We got the power.
> Why is it so hard to make that phone call? Does Hong Kong in general wish
> to be known as a spam-friendly place? Is that what the government wants? I
> don't think so.
As I know, PIHK will have something management meeting to have the
thing discuss. But at least spamhaus should show the consideration of
not taking this kind of action without notice and at the weekend, and
be patient.
Bill Carton - (The Roadie)
>
>Bill Carton - (The Roadie) wrote:
>> HKABC is ignoring reports about their spammers. You hold a cable to HKABC.
>> They should listen to you when you call them and demand they delete the
>> spammers.
>>
>> Have you called them yet? You will know when they take action because you
>> should demand to know. Or else you should pull the plug, yes. Or live with
>> the SBL listing.
>>
>Just HKABC ignore Spamhaus report and let PIHK bear all the
>responsibilities without showing the result of the blocking, is it
>fare? At least spamhaus should show us what it is going to do, ok I
>know, spamhaus are big, and can do whatever it want, judgement is
>spamhaus, police is spamhaus, governing is spamhaus.
There should be no email professional administrator anywhere in the world
who is not aware of Spamhaus and the SBL.
HKABC thought they could ignore abuse reports. My experience is that abuse
reports would have been sent to PIHK also. PIHK must have thought they
could ignore the problem also. This was a bad decision. Whoever made it
needs to understand the wey the Internet, and especially the SBL works.
>
>Spamhaus doesn't show considerate to block PIHK at WEEKEND. Soon we
>will call, after those upper management meeting, how to duel with
>HKABC, how we talk...it all take time....however, spamhaus didn't show
>us the result before PIHK have a chance to talk?
What do you mean, "show us the result"? You mean you wanted them to tell
you what would happen when your corporate mail servers suddenly could not
send email to 480,000,000 SBL subscribers? Nonsense. As soon as abuse
reports, especially ones from Spamhaus, arrived at PIHK, you should have
done the research, read the newsgroups NANAE and NANAB (this one) and
discovered what was about to happen. Blocklisting is hardly ever a
surprise, although you claim you didn't know it would be so bad.
It is bad. Especially when the SBL lists you. That's why warnings should
not be ignored.
>
>> >just read, but which criteria in effect will result the PIHK ip ranges
>> >will be blocked? spam-advertised hosting machine and its IPs are owned
>> >by HKABC, but not PIHK. Spamhaus, which is extending its power, to
>> >force PIHK to pull the plug, which the action will affect all those
>> >innocent users at HKABC. And HKABC and its legitimate user might have
>> >the right to charge or claim loss from the PIHK.
>>
>> So call HKABC and demand they remove their spammers. Why have you not
>> called them yet?
>
>It is still weekend. Be patient, commander.
They don't have 24 hours NOC staff? And those staff don't have the home
phones of upper management for emergencies? If the NOC had a fire or flood,
I bet management could be contacted. Anyway, that's a direct consequence of
ignoring the abuse reports, or believing that your customer contracts
supercede the expectations of the rest of the Internet.
>
>> >Same, It is their own HKABC IP which hosts the spam-advertised web
>> >site, but not PIHK. We do terminate website of PIHK if PIHK find its
>> >customer spam out.
>>
>> Excellent. And that policy should also extend to anyone you hold the plug
>> for. You provide connectivity. It is your cable. So your policy should
>> apply. Make them listen to you. They certainly are not listening to
>> Spamhaus or the rest of the outraged Internet.
>>
>Who will know HKABC listen to us? Contract was defined. Just pull out
>the plug and what if they call police? Then what?
You have a choice. Your contracts are deficient if your no-spam policy
cannot be enforced on your clients. Not just your IPs, but your bandwidth
customers. Your bad contract design is not our problem. There must be a
part of the policy that says a spamming customer can be disconnected!
>
>> >We can have the last method of only pull the plug, right?
>>
>> Exactly! You understand now. You can force them to get rid of the spammers.
>> Please do that. Soon.
>>
>> Surely you don't want them to sit there and keep the spammers?!?
>
>I am just a small potato and made the mail server running. Thus I hate
>spammers, virus...But I know I have to considerate to allow someone to
>rectify the problem. Not just, "I am the commander, just do it, bomb
>them immediately!".
My impression of Spamhaus is that notifications are sent. Since you say
PIHK has no policy to disconnect spamming clients, PIHK probably ignored
those notification emails. Management (or whoever decided the policy to
ignore notifications) thought they could ignore the rest of the Internet.
This was a very bad decision.
>
>> > Just like if
>> >there is only one terrorist inside innocent people and all the innocent
>> >should be bombed?
>>
>> Terrorism is not the same as spamming. And the other customers of HKABC are
>> not totally innocent because they are paying money to a spam-friendly ISP
>> and allowing it to live. Spam-friendly ISPs deserve to go out of business,
>> not live. Or to be educated by pressure brought on by SPamhaus and by YOU.
>>
>Do a average user know what the best or worst of their ISP services,
>nonsense.
They will soon find out, won't they?
>Innocent is Innocent.
No. Ignorance is not innocence. The average users might be ignorant, if
they don't know the truth about their providers. But even not-knowing
customers are about to become knowing customers if they know the truth.
>PIHK's customer is innocent too when they find
>problem sending the mails. If your logic correct, why doesn't the
>innocents get out of all the terrors and send them to US court? It is
>the responsibility of the innocent to turn over their bad government,
>not doing this is helping the bad government, bomb them!
I will ignore your bad analogies. But if PIHK is a good provider, they have
staff and policies to make sure that their customers are satisfied with
good service. You have a network design that should manage to work even if
parts of it fail. You should be able to survive power failures and
typhoons.
You just failed to have a backup plan in case you were blocklisted. This is
a management problem.
>
>> >Do you help transfer the call if someone have the wrong number? We do
>> >read abuse emails, and do action if it is related to PIHK IPs.
>>
>> There's your trouble. You also have to take action if the spam report
>> concerns a cable you provide.
>>
>Then why not CC to all PIHK upstreams all and block them all...Show the
>brave.
Spamhaus works in stages. First the spamming IPs, then the provider if they
do nothing to stop the spammers, or even sign up more. If the spammers are
especially bad ones (listed on ROKSO), this escalation might take a shorter
time.
HKABC signed up more ROKSO spammers, and ignored abuse reports. PIHK
supplies bandwidth, so you are next. Why would Spamhaus list anybody higher
than PIHK if you can call HKABC and get them to remove the spammers? Today
is your chance to do the right thing.
>
>> >Spamhaus should report abuse to hkabc. Spamhaus should only dial to
>> >HKABC. Spamhaus now force a conference call to PIHK only because PIHK
>> >provide foods to HKABC for trade. And Spamhaus shout to kill the food
>> >trader if food trader provide food for innocent.
>>
>> That's another better analogy. Spamhaus tried to talk to HKABC. They
>> refused to take action. When you call, with their cable in your hand, ready
>> to pull the plug, they might listen. They would be crazy to ignore you.
>> >
>
>Who knows? they can still send lawyer first, to first stop the unplug,
>if invalid of the contract.
That's fine. But PIHK will remain listed in Spamhaus if it happens. It has
happened to other providers with flawed and faulty contracts. Research the
lawsuits of Paetec versus Monsterhut.
>
>> >I am NOT saying spam advertised website is ok! It is absolutely not
>> >OK! PIHK do not provide spam advertised website. We have to
>> >differentiate terrorist and innocent, not just one cut. I am asking
>> >why Tier 1 provider have the bonus of not being blocked the whole
>> >network if it have a connection to ISP contain a spamadvertised site.
>> >Is it because Tier 1 are so big that spamhaus is afraid of and in other
>> >turn being blocked by Tier 1? OK, I know, spamhaus now got it power of
>> >so called 4XXXXXXXX user base, now this turn spamhaus win, and whatever
>> >they can do now. OK, Monopoly is good, Big is good. Size does matter!
>>
>> If you don't care that you are listed, then you can ignore Spamhaus. If you
>> care, and Spamhaus knows you hold the cable for HKABC, they're asking you
>> to enforce your no-spam policy on the cable to HKABC.
>
>PIHK enforce no-spam policy of its IPs. I am not sure the enforcement
>valid for downstream.
Spamhaus and most of the civilised Internet believe it should be. All
providers of any services need to have and enforce a no-spam policy on
their downstream clients. If it's not valid today, you need to change your
contracts as soon as possible to make it valid. If it takes 30 days or two
years to change your contracts and get rid of the spammers on your clients,
that will be the length of time PIHK will stay listed. Spamhaus says the
only way to get unlisted is to get rid of the cause for the listing.
Promises of future disconnections is not enough. The spammers must leave,
then the unlisting happens.
>> >
>> >Few choice? PIHK have no choice but to bomb the innocent, or killed by
>> >another type of terrorist. I am not the chooser. In fact, in my
>> >opinion, I don't like abc too, but I do like innocent.
>>
>> Then join the fight on the side of the good, ethical connectivity providers
>> and call on HKABC to get rid of the spammers.
>>
>> You need to choose sides. There are no longer any pure innocents in the
>> spam war. HKABC non-spamming customers are supporting a spam-friendly ISP,
>> and are no longer totally innocent. Just like PIHK is no longer innocent
>> since you provide a cable to HKABC.
>>
>Same as above...not repeat...I know, bomb them. We got the power.
You DO have the power. Use it wisely.
>
>> Why is it so hard to make that phone call? Does Hong Kong in general wish
>> to be known as a spam-friendly place? Is that what the government wants? I
>> don't think so.
>
>As I know, PIHK will have something management meeting to have the
>thing discuss. But at least spamhaus should show the consideration of
>not taking this kind of action without notice and at the weekend, and
>be patient.
You are working this weekend, or at least you're reading this newsgroup and
posting here. If you can't contact management, this means that they value
their holiday more than they value critical customer satisfaction issues.
Another bad choice, I believe. Somebody should have their phone numbers, if
not now, then by next week. You make it sound like a SBL listing is an
emergency for you. Why does management not believe the same thing?
Their patience was exhausted, I believe, when HKABC ignored their reports.
Once exhausted, patience does not magically become replenished. Weekends
are irrelevant on the Internet.
--
Bill "the Roadie" Carton
--
Marcus Aurelius
> As I know, PIHK will have something management meeting to have the
> thing discuss. But at least spamhaus should show the consideration of
> not taking this kind of action without notice and at the weekend, and
> be patient.
AIUI, a SpamHaus listing occurs if complaints remain without action.
Looks like SpamHaus' patience ran out.
You mentioned the risk of legal action from your client if you
disconnect them. That's your problem, not ours (tinu). Who is
responsible for your AUP, you or the rest of the Internet? If your AUP
has loopholes you can drive an 18-wheeler through then you need to fix
your AUP, not ask the rest of the Internet to sit tight while your
client's clients crap all over us.
--
MA
eya...@gmail.com
Some are outdated at PIHK page, lots of HKABC thing. And the claim of
expiration of blocking at the Spamhaus page is not valid.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> Bill Carton - (The Roadie) wrote:
> Spamhaus doesn't show considerate to block PIHK at WEEKEND.
> Soon we will call, after those upper management meeting,
> how to duel with HKABC, how we talk...it all take time
> ....however, spamhaus didn't show us the result before
> PIHK have a chance to talk?
You are saying that these 15 SBL listings for IPs under
the responsibility of pacific.net.hk , including 3 Listings
of known spam gangs with ROKSO records, just appeared this
weekend? (Looks like a full years worth of abuse, so far.)
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=pacific.net.hk
04-Feb-2005 01:13 GMT www.octopustravel.com
04-Feb-2005 01:14 GMT www.octopustravel.com (source)
12-Apr-2005 01:35 GMT Corporate server escalation - spammer hosting
14-Apr-2005 19:53 GMT ORDERTOWNZ.COM ; you-like-sex.com (hkabc.net)
22-Apr-2005 17:52 GMT Months of hosting spammers on HKABC.NET
29-May-2005 23:32 GMT 2000-mortgage.net / magnum-shop.com (hkabc.net)
08-Jun-2005 04:42 GMT girlinterest.com (hkabc.net)
21-Jun-2005 21:25 GMT Michael Lindsay / iMedia Networks
22-Jun-2005 20:52 GMT srpl.net
26-Jun-2005 05:38 GMT penis enlargement pills (hkabc.net)
27-Jun-2004 10:04 GMT 203.142.17.210.dyn.pacific.net.hk
29-Jun-2005 23:09 GMT Andrew Westmoreland
01-Jul-2005 01:36 GMT pacific.net.hk / hkabc.com corporate server escalation
19-Jul-2004 11:16 GMT Apple Express Ltd - eight8.com
>>So call HKABC and demand they remove their spammers. Why have you not
>>called them yet?
>
> It is still weekend. Be patient, commander.
If it is such an urgent issue with you, why wait the weekend?
(Either that or it is not so urgent.)
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Griffin-Technologies.net>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
huey.c...@gmail.com
> eya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you
> > decide to have a blocking?
> Why ask here?
> Talk to them directly: http://tinyurl.com/7cngz
I don't think this point got enough emphasis. This is the only useful
information in this thread. One of the lessons I learned in drill
sergeant school is that only an idiot argues about facts rather than
checking an authoritative source when one exists. This newsgroup, at
times, seems dominated by questions about SPEWS, and the answers range
from plausible-sounding to half-baked ramblings that clearly don't
reflect reality. But, in contrast to SPEWS, Spamhaus has published
contact mechanisms and clear delisting procedures. Why ask here? If
Spamhaus expects you to do something, they'll tell you what that is.
Ask _them_.
--
Huey
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> BlackList wrote:
>> eya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Spamhaus, I would like to ask what is your policy you
>>> decide to have a blocking?
>>
>> Why ask here?
>> Talk to them directly: http://tinyurl.com/7cngz
>>
>> SBL, the Abuse/Security representative of pacific.net.hk
>> (or the Internet Service Provider responsible for
>> connectivity to 202.14.67.0/24) needs to contact the SBL
>> Team to explain how the spam problem has been terminated.
>> If the spam problem that caused this listing has been
>> terminated we will normally remove the listing from the SBL.
>
> expiration of blocking at the Spamhaus page is not valid.
So, contact Spamhaus and tell them, they are the ones who can
update / change the records.
furio ercolessi
>
> > Moreover, normal user will just know who is spamming
> > out/virus out by the IP address shown in the headers and
> > report spamming to the owner of the IPs, but not ASN.
> > Same, PIHK, like any upstream provider, will not know
> > the severity of the spamming problem because it is not
> > directly report by abuse@hkabc, or any loop back
> > acknowledgement.
>
> Now that you have referenced the Spamhaus record; you can no
> longer claim you don't know.
Now, HKNet is fully aware of the problems that this situation has
created to the rest of the Internet, and has apparently removed
the spammers to resolve the issue that originated this thread.
One would have hoped that the issue is really closed now, but
unfortunately this is not the case: tonight we received a lot of crap
from 202.67.225.0/24 (now luckily SBL has it). So it appears that
HKNet simply relocated the spammers elsewhere in its network.
The situation is now, in my eyes, very very different from what
it was one week ago: as it seems that the presence of spammers
at HKNet was not accidental, or the result of some irresponsible
sales person, but the result of a true business choice made by HKNet
management or by a 'close' partner company. Given the situation and
all the spammers being kicked out of China and looking for ho$ting,
it could get worse and worse.
So now all the red alarms have started, and this is probably a good time
to summarize HKNet connectivity, as this information may turn to be useful
in the forthcoming weeks to antispam organizations and to ISPs, until
spammers are eradicated from HKNet:
AS4645 (HKNet Co. Ltd) is making the following announcements via BGP:
150.213.0.0/16
202.2.80.0/24
202.2.83.0/24
202.2.84.0/24
202.2.85.0/24
202.40.128.0/23
202.44.120.0/21
202.57.240.0/20
202.67.128.0/19
202.67.128.0/17
202.67.150.0/24
202.67.151.0/24
202.67.153.0/24
202.67.154.0/24
202.67.155.0/24
202.67.156.0/24
202.67.157.0/24
202.67.159.0/24
202.67.160.0/19
202.67.192.0/18
202.67.197.0/24
202.67.199.0/24
202.67.200.0/21
202.67.215.0/24
202.67.216.0/24
202.67.216.0/21
202.67.217.0/24
202.67.218.0/24
202.67.220.0/24
202.67.223.0/24
202.67.226.0/24
202.67.230.0/24
202.67.231.0/24
202.67.235.0/24
202.67.238.0/24
202.67.240.0/24
202.71.192.0/18
202.71.200.0/24
202.71.224.0/20
202.71.240.0/20
202.71.247.0/24
202.87.0.0/22
202.94.232.0/24
202.94.233.0/24
202.94.234.0/24
202.94.236.0/24
202.94.237.0/24
202.94.238.0/24
202.94.239.0/24
203.119.2.0/24
203.131.224.0/20
203.169.128.0/19
203.169.128.0/18
203.169.128.0/17
203.169.132.0/22
203.169.160.0/20
203.169.160.0/19
203.169.176.0/22
203.169.176.0/20
203.169.192.0/22
218.213.0.0/16
Upstreams/Peers:
AS2914 Verio
AS4635 Hong Kong Internet Exchange
AS17888 SingTel
What a BGP polluter. They have a lot of nested announcements,
probably to implement different routing policies; but this looks
like a really waste of BGP space.
Interesting to note that several networks used by spammers recently,
such as 202.67.220.0/24, 202.67.159.0/24, 202.67.215.0/24,
202.67.240.0/24, 202.67.157.0/24, have their own 'customized'
routing policy.
The list above does not include announces from downstreams passing
through 4645. Particularly noteworthy is AS9260 (paths ending
with 4645_9260), as it is announcing the /24 spamming now:
202.67.219.0/24
202.67.224.0/24
202.67.225.0/24 <=== spamming now
aut-num: AS9260
as-name: GO80-AS-AP
descr: Power Well Technology Ltd. AS
country: HK
admin-c: NG49-AP
tech-c: NG49-AP
person: NOC Go80
nic-hdl: NG49-AP
e-mail: ipa...@pachosting.com
address: 1902 19/F Chinahem Johnston Plaza
address: 178-186 Johnston Road
address: WanChai Hong Kong
phone: +852-25750575
fax-no: +852-25750573
country: HK
changed: ipa...@pachosting.com 20041103
mnt-by: MAINT-NEW
source: APNIC
So this is perhaps the entity close to the core of the problem?
furio
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
> One would have hoped that the issue is really closed now, but
> unfortunately this is not the case: tonight we received a lot of crap
> from 202.67.225.0/24 (now luckily SBL has it). So it appears that
> HKNet simply relocated the spammers elsewhere in its network.
Under the circumstances (e.g., HKnet *actively helping* the spammers), it is
my opinion that HKnet should now be "nailed into" all blocklists where it
currently resides - and added to any others which are designed to block spam-
friendly ISPs.
--
Email, Smarthosting, Web hosting for individuals and business:
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
"I ran the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and now Windows is gone!"
--