On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Ken Chase <math@sizone.org> wrote:
"Abuse cannot not provide you a list of websites that may be encountering reduced visibility via Cogent"
They could, if they kept a list of forward lookups they had done to get IPs
i think you mean passive-dns .. which is a thing, and exists. (mumble (passive total|farsight|deteque|....) mumble)
that ended up in their blacklists. But just having the IPs it's impossible to get the whole list of possible hostnames that point at it (reverse records are singular, and often missing).
Nonetheless, it'd be nice to know how a single IP got onto the list - and what Cogent's doing about situations where multiple other hostnames map onto the same ip.
it's totally possible that the list here is really just a court-order addition, right? I can't imagine that there is a cogent employee just evily twiddling pens and adding random ips to blacklists...
I have clietns that are Cogent customers, I'd just like to get informed before I bring the hammer down.
it's worth noting that fairly much every service provider has a provision like cogent's 'force majaure' clause which includes: '...any law, order, regulation...' so it seems safe to assume that there's some court order cogent reacted to :( we should fight that problem upstream.
/kc -- Ken Chase - math@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.