In message <DB7PR06MB50173157978D7621C6C0C11294F30@DB7PR06MB5017.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
My comments about the apnic-talk address was that I wasn't sure if that list was used to the kind of content, and I was worried that it might not get Ronald's message where it would it best for it to go...
I've looked around and frankly, the pickings, when it comes to APNIC mailing lists, are rather on the lean/sparse side. That region doesn't have a "abuse" working group or mailing list. It does have a "Routing Security" Special Interest Group (SIG) and an associated mailing lists for that, and you're right, Brian, that I might have been better off to send my notice there, rather than sending it to apnic-talk, as I did do, but then again it could be argued, albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek, that what I posted had more to do with routing IN-security than it did with routing security, per se. Not that any of this matters much anyway. As I have been infomred several thousand times, none of the RIRs are "the Internet Police" and thus all are utterly powerless to even so much as officially -care- about such matters. But given the general difficulty of finding anybody anywhere who cares about such events/schemes, I confess that I do have a tendency to just shout into the wind and hope that someone somwhere who has the authority to act will see what I have written, will care, and will act. Regards, rfg