nanog mailing list archives
Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net
From: Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz () wvi com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:11:19 -0800
S. Ryan wrote:
Or it was a minor oversight and you're all pissing and moaning over nothing?That's a thought too.
Well, if the oversight involves filtering the "should never be filtered" abuse@ address, it might be a bit more than minor.
But they ought to have a chance to fix it before being labeled the scum of the earth, eh?
-- Jeff Shultz
Current thread:
- unwise filtering policy from cox.net goemon (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net S. Ryan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Jeff Shultz (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Joe Greco (Nov 20)
- [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Alex Pilosov (Nov 20)
- Re: [admin] Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Martin Hannigan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net S. Ryan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Martin Hannigan (Nov 20)
- RE: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Raymond L. Corbin (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Chris Owen (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net chuck goolsbee (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Sean Donelan (Nov 20)
- Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net Paul Jakma (Nov 21)