Re: Purchased IPv4 Woes

[Pete Baldwin <pete () tccmail ca>]

We used giglinx.    There was a third party that was validating the 
blocks, and they/we caught a lot of issues with the first block for offer.

This was the second block offered, and it looked decent, but I never 
personally checked the /16 parent.  I was only looking at the /18.   The 
reason I made this post is to try and catch the things I couldn't see.   
We don't appear to be on any lists (RBLs, senderbase look good), but 
obviously we are still in peoples filtering rules.   The big one was 
Spamhaus DROP but that was removed before we purchased the block.

The previous owner looked fine too, it was actually the owner before the 
last that seemed to have been the cause of a lot of the bad rep, but 
again that was cleaned up before we ever even made the request to buy.


-----

Pete Baldwin
Tuckersmith Communications
(P) 519-565-2400
(C) 519-441-7383

On 03/11/2017 11:27 PM, Bryan Holloway wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> Let this be a lesson: when purchasing blocks, one MUST do their due 
> diligence. Check the RBLs, senderbase, previous owner reputation, etc. 
> before buying.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
>
> On 3/11/17 3:13 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Which broker did you use fot the transaction?
> >
> >  Did you get a discount for knowingly accepting a dirty block or is 
> > this a
> > surprise?
> >
> > Are folks asking for warranties on acquired addresses these days?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -M<
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > -M<
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:11 Pete Baldwin <pete () tccmail ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > >      Hopefully this is not taken in bad taste.   Our organization
> > > purchased some IP space last year (163.182.192.0/18 to be specific), 
> > > and
> > > it appears that this block must have been used for less-than-admirable
> > > purposes in the past.
> > >
> > > We have been trying to clean up the reputation where possible, and 
> > > we do
> > > not appear to be on any blacklists, but we do appear to be blocked from
> > > a lot of networks across the US/Canada.    I am noticing a lot of name
> > > servers blocking our requests, many web servers, gaming servers, 
> > > mail etc.
> > >
> > > This is a transition block for us to move towards v6 everywhere, but we
> > > have many systems that will need to rely on this block of space for 
> > > some
> > > time to come.
> > >
> > > We are a small rural co-op ISP in Ontario, and I am just writing this
> > > email as an extra plea so that if you happen to run a network that has
> > > this entire range on your naughty list, we would appreciate you giving
> > > it another chance.  I can be contacted on or off list, thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Pete Baldwin
> > > Tuckersmith Communications
> > > (P) 519-565-2400
> > > (C) 519-441-7383