Jump to content

[Resolved] Last resort contact michaelc[at]fareastone.com.tw for 112.105.17.62


Recommended Posts

Posted

Repeatedly, I get...

'Routing details for 112.105.17.62

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 112.105.17.62 : michaelc[at]fareastone.com.tw

Using last resort contacts michaelc[at]fareastone.com.tw'

Refresh does not change routing details. The 'spam Contact' is abuse[at]sparqnet.net per a direct query at
, which applies to the range 112.104.0.0-112.105.255.255 . Please add spam Contact to routing or replace. It seems to me that APNIC is inadequate, outdated, or both, for Taiwan, Japan and, more recently, Korea, as I continue to cross-check directly with the individual countries' NICs.
Posted

Repeatedly, I get...

'Routing details for 112.105.17.62

[refresh/show] Cached whois for 112.105.17.62 : michaelc[at]fareastone.com.tw

Using last resort contacts michaelc[at]fareastone.com.tw'

Refresh does not change routing details. The 'spam Contact' is abuse[at]sparqnet.net per a direct query at
, which applies to the range 112.104.0.0-112.105.255.255 . Please add spam Contact to routing or replace. It seems to me that APNIC is inadequate, outdated, or both, for Taiwan, Japan and, more recently, Korea, as I continue to cross-check directly with the individual countries' NICs.

There is no real abuse address best to send to Taiwan CERT

irr[at]twncert.org.tw (NO ABUSE ADDRESS)

see

My problem with SpamCop locking in non-conformant "abuse" address's they become legacy issues so if a conformant abuse address is made or changed it stays wrong for years. Prefer SpamCop to not send if it's software cannot detect an abuse address (also do not like "last resort" addresses used)

SpamCop needs to reconsider it's "policy" of not sending to CERT addresses, unless requested not to send

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...