4 ms·

Delivered-To: shereef@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.137.69 with SMTP id v5cs104210wbt; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <101badkarma@g

by kabuks 16y ago

Delivered-To: shereef@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.137.69 with SMTP id v5cs104210wbt; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <101badkarma@gmail.com> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of 101badkarma@gmail.com designates 10.142.223.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.142.223.11; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 101badkarma@gmail.com designates 10.142.223.11 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=101badkarma@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=101badkarma@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.142.223.11]) by 10.142.223.11 with SMTP id v11mr6012112wfg.29.1284860525531 (num_hops = 1); Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=En3bZiL4+B5vTtybnZXiAYgxVH8KE7aSzQ8trXFJhfw=; b=b0mf+OtiHbF5VdsI9H27MN7Tmwz6NLqkFU/1fPmYNqbBNOR7kkXv0OrJsD3zIbZ4Js i6eaN1cBbq5DEDjxxJIqhwPBaJw6qUAJkQvFXeg9F/afpS6e3/jyfBbthgcXCEKxFfg+ vwaTfaiQeFFyXHTI1CG5XZLCICl2L7LXVH/tA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=aZps057Ba5cXMeIEOROw7bo/ZxucfJyDaLxN0F3nepTGQYtaUFtpA+H1irq3s5CfeE A0z0zWtaKFAVe3K6VJibIRleRkCaIy8WDKkoWMUTze1xQcSWphWiiDK8yixD989a8LRW unv0IRELrI4cauF32fgTvT4wW3Sa+leUuv20I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.223.11 with SMTP id v11mr6012112wfg.29.1284860525521; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.135.13 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:42:05 -0700 Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ek0sq9johN8AYFjQQXpg0kvGtE5ZXn0MZ=zU0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Stolen Laptop From: karma bad <101badkarma@gmail.com> To: shereef@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd17e7635ad30049092e752 --000e0cd17e7635ad30049092e752 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

ekpyrotic 16y ago
I don't know much when it comes to ips, i.e., I can't tell whether that is a shared ip, or otherwise. Nonetheless, a quick search reveals this individual (http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&p=32579 http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&p=32...) used/had that ip 3 months ago. (S)he appears to be a security specialist, which goes with the impression I got from the email.
- blasdel 16y ago
  You're right, you don't know much about IP addresses. The entire 10.x.x.x block was reserved long ago for use on private networks, it's not routed anywhere on the internet. This RFC from 1996 describing best practices for their use is still accurate: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 All of those addresses in the header posted are hosts within one of Google's networks. The same address is likely in use on other such networks.

by kabuks 16y ago

ekpyrotic 16y ago

I don't know much when it comes to ips, i.e., I can't tell whether that is a shared ip, or otherwise. Nonetheless, a quick search reveals this individual (http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&p=32579 http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&p=32...) used/had that ip 3 months ago. (S)he appears to be a security specialist, which goes with the impression I got from the email.

blasdel 16y ago
You're right, you don't know much about IP addresses. The entire 10.x.x.x block was reserved long ago for use on private networks, it's not routed anywhere on the internet. This RFC from 1996 describing best practices for their use is still accurate: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 All of those addresses in the header posted are hosts within one of Google's networks. The same address is likely in use on other such networks.