North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Re: The in-your-face hijacking example, was: Re: Who is announcing bogons?
Just to add to this discussion. I looked at the arin entry again, all of his data including name, address, telephone number are valid. 925-550-3947 rings directly to Emil personally I don't care what kind of phone it is cell, landline, ip phone it's him who answers:). Its also their published business number. It matched their trade references and bank data as well on the credit side <I asked after the last post>. So sincerely I'm not sure what the problem is. Now someone mentioned that LAnet owned the block. If LAnet calls me up or sends me proper proof its their block I'd pull the announcement. Else, if someone here convinces me that its improper, I'll pull the announcement, but on the surface I do think he's on ok Ground. I actually asked Emil to join the list and discussion on this I'm assuming its on topic. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <[email protected]> To: "Scott Granados" <[email protected]> Cc: "Richard Cox" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: Re: The in-your-face hijacking example, was: Re: Who is announcing bogons? > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Scott Granados wrote: > > In point of fact a credit check was done including the contacting of three > > trade references and some other searches, I can't speak as well to this as > > I didn't do the check myself but in this case the customer passed as I do > > know no deposit was required and in many cases they are. Many times PO > > boxes are used and PO boxes can be gotten from the PO obviously but also > > from third parties. > > is wworks official position then that this customer is doing nothing > wrong? > > -Dan > -- > [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-] > >