Re: More sorbs blacklisting
On Monday 07 August 2006 17:54, Craig Sanders wrote:
> trouble is that whoever you spoke to is not actually clued up, they are
> speaking complete shit.
>
> did you ever stop to think that your ISP is either lying to cover their
> laziness and incompetence or just speaking shit because they don't have a
> fucking clue?
What an interesting idea.
> if SORBS are listing it as dynamic it is because your ISP is too lazy
> and/or clueless to properly register their networks blocks with ARIN.
Would SORBS be hallucinating that registration of dynamic
netblocks is covered in RFC2050[0] do you think?
Or would SORBS instead be imagining that there is a field
to specify a netblock as dynamic when requesting an
allocation[1]?
Perhaps the non-existent dynamic flag in SWIP[2]?
> there you have it - comments from a clueless ISP drone speaking shit to
> cover their arse being used by a clueless end-user to "support" their
> baseless whinge about the SORBS DUL.
>
> no, you just wanted to continue your boring fucking whinge. give it a
> fucking rest, we're all sick and tired of it.
Thank you so much for sharing. (Plonk)
--Mike Bird
[0] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2050.html
[1] http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/net-isp.txt
[2] http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/reassign-detailed.txt
Reply to: