[TheForge] Re: this is outright false ( was Re: test post --
ignore)
terry l. ridder
[email protected]
Tue Aug 26 14:18:03 2003
hello;
i am not sure what xo has to do with this since dmv.com has direct
allocation of net blocks from arin (american registry of internet
numbers). dmv.com has nothing to do with xo, so i am missing your point.
that being said, i also have large sections of 64.0.0.0/8 blocklisted
which includes dialtone (davie, florida).
btw, XOXO-BLK-14, is only 4, in old terminology, class bs.
64.0.0.0/16
64.1.0.0/16
64.2.0.0/16
64.3.0.0/16
i do not have any of the above xo net blocks blocklisted.
i have sent e-mails to both meritel.com/viser.com (same organization)
and pair.com, asking if they ever blocked dmv.com and/or qth.net for any
reason. i am waiting for replys.
concerning, lighten up, i do not think so. paul hewitt, made a totally
false statement concerning dmv.com (qth.net upstream provider) and
qth.net. i have asked for him to present the evidence to backup his
statement. he has not.
# DELMARVA ONLINE DMVOL (NET-64-45-128-0-1) 64.45.128.0 - 64.45.159.255
# DELMARVA ONLINE DMVOL-BLK-2 (NET-64-238-0-0-1) 64.238.0.0 - 64.238.15.255
# XO Communications XOXO-BLK-14 (NET-64-0-0-0-1) 64.0.0.0 - 64.3.255.255
# XO Communications XOXO-BLK-22 (NET-64-35-0-0-1) 64.35.0.0 - 64.35.127.255
# XO Communications XOXO-BLK-7 (NET-64-50-0-0-1) 64.50.0.0 - 64.50.127.255
# XO Communications XOXO-BLK-5 (NET-64-220-0-0-1) 64.220.0.0 - 64.221.255.255
#
# OrgName: DELMARVA ONLINE
#
# NetRange: 64.45.128.0 - 64.45.159.255
# CIDR: 64.45.128.0/19
# NetName: DMVOL
# NetHandle: NET-64-45-128-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
# Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
#
#
# OrgName: DELMARVA ONLINE
#
# NetRange: 64.238.0.0 - 64.238.15.255
# CIDR: 64.238.0.0/20
# NetName: DMVOL-BLK-2
# NetHandle: NET-64-238-0-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
# Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
#
#
# OrgName: XO Communications
#
# NetRange: 64.0.0.0 - 64.3.255.255
# CIDR: 64.0.0.0/14
# NetName: XOXO-BLK-14
# NetHandle: NET-64-0-0-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
#
#
# OrgName: XO Communications
#
# NetRange: 64.35.0.0 - 64.35.127.255
# CIDR: 64.35.0.0/17
# NetName: XOXO-BLK-22
# NetHandle: NET-64-35-0-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
# Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
#
#
# OrgName: XO Communications
#
# NetRange: 64.50.0.0 - 64.50.127.255
# CIDR: 64.50.0.0/17
# NetName: XOXO-BLK-7
# NetHandle: NET-64-50-0-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
# Comment:
#
#
# OrgName: XO Communications
#
# NetRange: 64.220.0.0 - 64.221.255.255
# CIDR: 64.220.0.0/15
# NetName: XOXO-BLK-5
# NetHandle: NET-64-220-0-0-1
# Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
# NetType: Direct Allocation
# Comment:
#
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Mike Spencer wrote:
terrylr>
terrylr> btw, i am not asking, i am demanding that you produce the
terrylr> evidence now.
terrylr>
mike>
mike> Jeez, Terry,lighten up. I have the whole of NET-XOXO-BLK-14
mike> (64.0.0.0/8) on my personal blocklist with mailman.qth.net
mike> whitelisted. I, too, checked some DNSBLs and didn't find the qth
mike> server but XO has a messy track record [1] and I surmise that many
mike> local lists besides mine block it partly or in toto.
mike>
mike> Hey, the is the internet. Instead of "demanding", how about you just
mike> ask nicely?
mike>
mike> - Mike
mike>
mike> [1] No, I don't have evidence on file. Use deja-google on nanae & XO.
mike>
mike>
--
Terry L. Ridder ><>