Matthew Sullivan wrote: > If you checked with the original complainant you would find that both > the zombie and DUHL listings are cleared. If you knew the ticket > numbers and where they sit in the SORBS RT Support system you would know > that there were multiple tickets logged the oldest now being 10 days, > the most recent being 5 days - and under published policy the earliest > was pushed into the more recent. You'll also note that the original > complaint was about a single IP address as part of a /27 within a /19 > listing.
OK. I have no problem with that. I want you to understand that my observation comes from seeing *many* people complain about a lack of response. If it was just a couple, that'd be a horse of another color. And frankly, it's not like you try to hide. You're a public figure here and on several other discussion forums. So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if people are having trouble reaching SORBS, it's not because the contacts aren't published. In fact, I've seen a number of complaints that people *have* contacted SORBS and have failed to get a response. > The quoted text above is intended for a few that might still be on this > list, non of which posted to this thread. The fact remains some ISPs > provide transit to known criminal organisations for hijacked netblocks > which are used for nothing but abuse (hosting trojans and viruses). I'm not arguing that fact. Whether or not it was an appropriate response is another matter. >> I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any >> better by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some >> cases, never were. >> > Where do you get that from...? We fix incorrect listings as soon as > notified and with no deliberate delay. If you are refering to listings > like Dean Anderson's stolen netblock these are not delisted until such > time as proof is obtained that our information is incorrect. Perhaps "refusal" is not the proper word, and I apologize for using it. It does imply intent. "failure" may be a more accurate description. > permission even from a company folding is still stealing) - his response > was a lot of bluster followed by the creation of the IADL.org site. Yup, I know. I'm there too. I am one of Dean's most vocal detractors. > Something to consider before replying: is this on or off topic for > NANOG? (personally I think part of this is on topic, other parts of the > thread are definitely off topic) It has been agreed that spam is offtopic, although the issue of hijacked netblocks certainly isn't. So I probably should have replied to you off-list (apologies to everyone else for lowering the S:N ratio). I don't know what the official word is on whether DNSBL operations in general are on-topic for this list. I would appreciate if the people in charge of deciding such things could tell me whether DNSBLs are on-topic or not... -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
