Re: SV: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
Hi,
I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.)
Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included. So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible.
2. Measure how much spam originates from each ISP.
Difficult to formulate this way. Better would be: RIPE has to start to messure the amount of abuse reports any member receives. Messurement systems have to include a system run by RIPE NCC and could include other reliable data from souces not related to RIPE.
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario.
A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities. I would prefer to make this step later, after contracts are changed and a messurement system is introduced. Having facts, data and results from such a system could help defining who is really "bad".
I saw you had the same or similar idea on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-spam-wg/2008/msg00056.html
From the looks of it im suspecting we cant even get consensus on the first step, unfortunately. :( For step number two i think the easiest way would be using spamcop or some similar system. The benefits for using spamcop is that its already an existing system. No cost for developing the system or for teaching users how to report spam. People all around the world already uses it and knows how to report spam. Spamcop has already a system for contacting the correct ISP (I think). RIPE can use the statistics provided by spamcop to see what ISPs misbehaves. (Of course RIPE must be more accepting for the amount of spam than Spamcop. Its already prepared for all other RIRs if they should follow after RIPE has begun. And if RIPE cooperates with spamcop i also assume more users would be reporting the spam there.
You see, its not that old :o)
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case.
The system is well known, and most big provider use it and forget problems to their customers, the are even opening tickets for these cases, to not forget them. spamhaus is another very reliable source. I bet both and even others would love to share their data with a RIR. But again, to be really reliable, RIPE needs to have a own system, no judgement could be done, if RIPE ONLY counts on other resources ...
Do you think this could work? I will continue to read the archive to see if someone has found a problem with this earlier.
Well, I started this discussion, so I think it would work and would help. Its only how to formulate this and how details should look like. There I do still need more input ... Kidn regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Best Regards Martin Tranefjord
On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
Hi,
I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.)
Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included.
So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible.
You cannot expect anyone to sign a contract which expects them to take action against something which has not been defined.
2. Measure how much spam originates from each ISP.
Difficult to formulate this way.
Better would be: RIPE has to start to messure the amount of abuse reports any member receives. Messurement systems have to include a system run by RIPE NCC and could include other reliable data from souces not related to RIPE.
This means that all the spam reports would have to go via RIPE which is not a good idea for a multitude of reasons.
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario.
A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities.
You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions
I would prefer to make this step later, after contracts are changed and a messurement system is introduced. Having facts, data and results from such a system could help defining who is really "bad".
I saw you had the same or similar idea on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-spam-wg/2008/msg00056.html
From the looks of it im suspecting we cant even get consensus on the first step, unfortunately. :( For step number two i think the easiest way would be using spamcop or some similar system. The benefits for using spamcop is that its already an existing system. No cost for developing the system or for teaching users how to report spam. People all around the world already uses it and knows how to report spam. Spamcop has already a system for contacting the correct ISP (I think). RIPE can use the statistics provided by spamcop to see what ISPs misbehaves. (Of course RIPE must be more accepting for the amount of spam than Spamcop. Its already prepared for all other RIRs if they should follow after RIPE has begun. And if RIPE cooperates with spamcop i also assume more users would be reporting the spam there.
You see, its not that old :o)
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case.
The system is well known, and most big provider use it
That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement. Do you have proof to back that up? Spamcop can be useful, yes. But a lot of Spamcop reports are not reliable at all.
and forget problems to their customers, the are even opening tickets for these cases, to not forget them. spamhaus is another very reliable source. I bet both and even others would love to share their data with a RIR.
But again, to be really reliable, RIPE needs to have a own system, no judgement could be done, if RIPE ONLY counts on other resources ...
Do you think this could work? I will continue to read the archive to see if someone has found a problem with this earlier.
Well, I started this discussion, so I think it would work and would help. Its only how to formulate this and how details should look like.
There I do still need more input ...
Kidn regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Best Regards Martin Tranefjord
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.) Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included.
So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible.
You cannot expect anyone to sign a contract which expects them to take action against something which has not been defined.
Again, the above sentence is not talking about abuse, its talking about abuse reports, or name it complaints, when you like that more. You dont need a definition of abuse, if you make the member responsible for taking care of complaints. Abuse is then everything what the recipient or attack person like to complain about, because he feels abused.
2. Measure how much spam originates from each ISP. Difficult to formulate this way.
Better would be: RIPE has to start to messure the amount of abuse reports any member receives. Messurement systems have to include a system run by RIPE NCC and could include other reliable data from souces not related to RIPE.
This means that all the spam reports would have to go via RIPE which is not a good idea for a multitude of reasons.
Looks like you did not read the DRAFT at all. Thats excatly why we need a system at RIPE. And the pros and cons of such a system are discussed here since last week.
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario. A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities.
You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions
Again, you dont need a definition. Its only important that the members takes care about complaints.
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case. The system is well known, and most big provider use it
That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement.
Do you have proof to back that up?
No, and I dont have too, because I sayd, that RIPE needs an own system to be bullet-proof, toher source "could" be used to proof own data, nothing more. Kind regards, Frank
Martin Tranefjord
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
On 12 Apr 2010, at 10:47, Frank Gadegast wrote:
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.) Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included.
So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible. You cannot expect anyone to sign a contract which expects them to take action against something which has not been defined.
Again, the above sentence is not talking about abuse, its talking about abuse reports, or name it complaints, when you like that more. You dont need a definition of abuse, if you make the member responsible for taking care of complaints.
Abuse is then everything what the recipient or attack person like to complain about, because he feels abused.
That is wide open to gaming. Taking care of a complaint can be as simple as closing the ticket.
2. Measure how much spam originates from each ISP. Difficult to formulate this way.
Better would be: RIPE has to start to messure the amount of abuse reports any member receives. Messurement systems have to include a system run by RIPE NCC and could include other reliable data from souces not related to RIPE. This means that all the spam reports would have to go via RIPE which is not a good idea for a multitude of reasons.
Looks like you did not read the DRAFT at all. Thats excatly why we need a system at RIPE. And the pros and cons of such a system are discussed here since last week.
And I and others have pointed out why such a centralised system is a fundamentally flawed idea
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario. A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities. You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions
Again, you dont need a definition. Its only important that the members takes care about complaints.
"Take care" how exactly? You really can't be this vague if you want to modify a contract and introduce censure against RIPE members
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case. The system is well known, and most big provider use it That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement. Do you have proof to back that up?
No, and I dont have too, because I sayd, that RIPE needs an own system to be bullet-proof, toher source "could" be used to proof own data, nothing more.
You are putting forward a proposal which you expect to be taken seriously If you cannot defend it properly why did you even start?
Kind regards, Frank
Martin Tranefjord
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: Still no "hello" from you ... (and then complaining about "my tone") Hello Michele,
On 12 Apr 2010, at 10:47, Frank Gadegast wrote:
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
Hi, Hi,
I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.) Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included.
So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible. You cannot expect anyone to sign a contract which expects them to take action against something which has not been defined. Again, the above sentence is not talking about abuse, its talking about abuse reports, or name it complaints, when you like that more. You dont need a definition of abuse, if you make the member responsible for taking care of complaints.
Abuse is then everything what the recipient or attack person like to complain about, because he feels abused.
That is wide open to gaming.
See me next mailing about this. I explained it now 10 times, and maybe you read the 11th. Thats whats the backlink is for.
Taking care of a complaint can be as simple as closing the ticket.
Right, and to give a comment, select a category or whatever. But: you will still get those that do not react at all, that have a dead abuse address aso. And it will be quite easy to detect, if one member simply closes all his tickets without giving any feedback.
Looks like you did not read the DRAFT at all. Thats excatly why we need a system at RIPE. And the pros and cons of such a system are discussed here since last week.
And I and others have pointed out why such a centralised system is a fundamentally flawed idea
Right, but its not at all helpful to repeat the cons. It would be more helpful, if you present ideas to make a whatever anti abuse system make it to work, so that you like it. What do you need to drop your cons ?
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario. A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities. You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions Again, you dont need a definition. Its only important that the members takes care about complaints.
"Take care" how exactly?
Up to the member. Nobody will tell the member how to react, and how could we ?
You really can't be this vague if you want to modify a contract and introduce censure against RIPE members
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case. The system is well known, and most big provider use it That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement. Do you have proof to back that up? No, and I dont have too, because I sayd, that RIPE needs an own system to be bullet-proof, toher source "could" be used to proof own data, nothing more.
You are putting forward a proposal which you expect to be taken seriously
Not at all, its a draft for discussion, thats what we are doing here. The next version will be much better and suite the needs of much more people here on the list. But surely only those that give feedback about how to make it better.
If you cannot defend it properly why did you even start?
Sorry, you dont help the discussion. All you do is critizising me (not for the first time and too personal I would say). I have nothing to "defend", an RFC is a "request for comment", if you dont know that. Do your comments, give ideas, tell me how to make a better system, that suits even more people. Others on this list give really valuable feedback, like "hm, thats not a good idea, you did not think about this or that, better do it this way", thats what I need. But I can write an RFC with the title "RFC 3302: why frank is that stupid" then you can comment me personally ... Kind regards, Frank
Kind regards, Frank
Martin Tranefjord
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
On 12 Apr 2010, at 11:27, Frank Gadegast wrote:
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Still no "hello" from you ... (and then complaining about "my tone")
Frank I've addressed emails in reply to you "correctly" ie. by including your name - yet you still expect me to post using some kind of form that you like. It is NOT correct in English to open an email with the line "Hello John Doe"
That is wide open to gaming.
See me next mailing about this. I explained it now 10 times, and maybe you read the 11th. Thats whats the backlink is for.
Just because you repeat something 10 times does not make it right
Taking care of a complaint can be as simple as closing the ticket.
Right, and to give a comment, select a category or whatever.
You don't know how our ticketing system works or that of anyone else other than your own. If we simply close a ticket you won't see anything
But: you will still get those that do not react at all, that have a dead abuse address aso.
So you won't know about them. Or, as someone else suggested, you could simply route all the email to /dev/null
And it will be quite easy to detect, if one member simply closes all his tickets without giving any feedback.
Why would anyone "give feedback" if the "complaints" were just a massive waste of time to deal with?
Looks like you did not read the DRAFT at all. Thats excatly why we need a system at RIPE. And the pros and cons of such a system are discussed here since last week. And I and others have pointed out why such a centralised system is a fundamentally flawed idea
Right, but its not at all helpful to repeat the cons.
Why? Because you don't like them?
It would be more helpful, if you present ideas to make a whatever anti abuse system make it to work, so that you like it.
If you want to push standardising abuse reports then I'd be more than happy to help you.
What do you need to drop your cons ?
A sane solution to be presented to me by someone who actually has an understanding of how things work in the real world?
3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario. A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities. You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions Again, you dont need a definition. Its only important that the members takes care about complaints. "Take care" how exactly?
Up to the member. Nobody will tell the member how to react, and how could we ?
Hangon. You want to modify the RIPE contracts with each and every member and introduce penalties etc., You need to be less vague.
You really can't be this vague if you want to modify a contract and introduce censure against RIPE members
Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case. The system is well known, and most big provider use it That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement. Do you have proof to back that up? No, and I dont have too, because I sayd, that RIPE needs an own system to be bullet-proof, toher source "could" be used to proof own data, nothing more. You are putting forward a proposal which you expect to be taken seriously
Not at all, its a draft for discussion, thats what we are doing here. The next version will be much better and suite the needs of much more people here on the list. But surely only those that give feedback about how to make it better.
Well I've told you clearly what I don't like.
If you cannot defend it properly why did you even start?
Sorry, you dont help the discussion. All you do is critizising me (not for the first time and too personal I would say).
Of course I am going to criticise your idea - it's malformed and totally unreasonable
I have nothing to "defend", an RFC is a "request for comment", if you dont know that.
Do your comments, give ideas, tell me how to make a better system, that suits even more people.
Others on this list give really valuable feedback, like "hm, thats not a good idea, you did not think about this or that, better do it this way", thats what I need.
So because you don't like my feedback you think it's not "valuable"?
But I can write an RFC with the title "RFC 3302: why frank is that stupid" then you can comment me personally ...
Kind regards, Frank
Kind regards, Frank
Martin Tranefjord
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
participants (3)
-
Frank Gadegast -
Frank Gadegast -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight