Glen Wilson wrote:
*snip*
> I enquired about your email today and was told that you had lodged a fault
> regarding smtp relay attempts in which the offending ip was not an Ihug
> ip and the issue was dropped. It was also brought to my attention
> that in a follow up email from you to the abuse mailbox stated the
> following,...
>
> "If I don't get some sort of acknowledgement of my reports soon I will
> start dropping ihug IP ranges at the highest supernet I can see... "
Unfortunately you're taking my frustration and
desire-to-get-SOME-sort-of-response out of context, and its a shame you
did this on NZNOG.
I don't make a habit of misreporting complaints, and i'm wary of the
fact that as an end user (at least in the capacity I was reporting this
particular abuse case in) I don't exactly have any 'clout'. So I was
simply reporting a fact - that my frustration level was such that i'd
rather add all of ihug to my RBL than deal with the ongoing virus
payload that was (apparently) being ignored.
I have sent another response offlist but I felt the need to make it
clear that I am not a cry-wolf type and am familiar with the concepts of
dns lookup and whois. ;-)
Good luck to those at ihug with the thankless task of clearing that backlog!
Mark.
