[89774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: abuse.clue @ Sprint? (phish in barrel, pictures @ 11:00)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Tue Apr 4 17:52:19 2006
In-Reply-To: <200604041434.k34EYBSo003994@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:51:46 -0400
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Apr 4, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:43:20 EDT, John Payne said:
>
>> Bah, someone else mentioned them just recently. From my point of
>> view, all they seem to do is scattershot any addresses they can find
>> that's even remotely related.
>
> Given the fact that the type of places that the PIRT people need to
> notify
> are the kind of places that also have non-functional abuse@ addresses,
> do you have an actual *better* suggestion?
To *try* the *relevant* abuse@ addresses before scattershotting?
I'm talking about ME receiving a complaint from them about a Yahoo!
issue... that's how bad it is.
(No, I don't work for Yahoo!, my employer does have a relationship
with them, but we don't provide them IP connectivity).
