Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Do you, or have you had problems with SORBS? Tired of being able to do nothing about it? Sick of opening a trouble ticket, only to get delisted weeks later? I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. -Operator
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:35:11 -0700 iHate SORBS ihateso...@gmail.com wrote: I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. This doesn't seem like a network issue. You probably want the mailops list. Network operators aren't going to stop routing something that mail operators want. You are going to have to convince mail operators not to want it. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:35:11 PDT, iHate SORBS said: I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. You *do* realize your beef isn't with SORBS, it's with the mail operators that are using that as part of their input when deciding whether or not to accept mail, right? And they'll probably continue using it, because they're not the ones who feel the pain of being listed incorrectly. That won't change unless you can make a clear and logical business case of why using SORBS is counter-productive for *them*. That probably will mean that you have to demonstrate that your mail (and all the other SORBS false-positives) is worth more to their organization than the benefits they get from using SORBS (namely, a reduction in the amount of abusive mail they get). Unfortunately, unless you're trying to e-mail them a purchase order for an amount that's bigger than their anti-abuse team's budget, that probably will be a hard case to make. Further discussion is probably better suited for mailops or spam-l. pgpPjObJ6EiP7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
How about... Network Operators Against Whiny Mail Operators Who Have Nothing Better To Do With Their Time But Carry Out Personal Vendettas? NOAWMOWHNBTDWTRBCOPV --Original Message-- From: iHate SORBS To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Sent: Oct 12, 2010 6:35 AM Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Do you, or have you had problems with SORBS? Tired of being able to do nothing about it? Sick of opening a trouble ticket, only to get delisted weeks later? I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. -Operator -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On 10/12/2010 8:35 AM, iHate SORBS wrote: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Do you, or have you had problems with SORBS? Tired of being able to do nothing about it? Sick of opening a trouble ticket, only to get delisted weeks later? I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. -Operator Well, You can't post under your real name, this at best a tired rant, and quite honestly if you did, I think it'd be more likely that your upstream would stop routing you. Have a nice day!
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, iHate SORBS ihateso...@gmail.com wrote: I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. What sort of changes are you suggesting? Suggesting a block unless they make undisclosed changes is simply asinine. I'm no fan of SORBS, but at the end of the day (ignoring the issues like they had last week) they do what they say they do. The problem with SORBS is not SORBS itself, but the mail admins that are stupid enough to use it - or at least stupid enough to use it as a straight blacklist (as opposed to a scoring blacklist). Start up a campaign against those if you like - perhaps an RBL of people who are using the SORBS RBL - but asking people to stop routing a DNS domain just because you don't like their clearly stated listing criteria simply isn't going to fly. Scott.
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Scott Howard wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, iHate SORBS ihateso...@gmail.com wrote: I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes. What sort of changes are you suggesting? Suggesting a block unless they make undisclosed changes is simply asinine. I'm no fan of SORBS, but at the end of the day (ignoring the issues like they had last week) they do what they say they do. The problem with SORBS is not SORBS itself, but the mail admins that are stupid enough to use it - or at least stupid enough to use it as a straight blacklist (as opposed to a scoring blacklist). Start up a campaign against those if you like - perhaps an RBL of people who are using the SORBS RBL - but asking people to stop routing a DNS domain just because you don't like their clearly stated listing criteria simply isn't going to fly. I kinda-sortta feel like many others who have posted here. This is a mail thing, not netops. Grow a pair and post under your own name. Is it even on-topic for NANOG? Etc. I even started typing a message to the effect of: even though I don't like SORBS, they should be allowed to publish a list and let others do as they please. But then I realized, that is all this anonymous person is asking. Or at least it could be. If iHate SORBS wants to create a (another?) list of prefixes which should not be routed, and put SORBS on it, he (she?) should be allowed, just as SORBS should be allowed to have a list of mail servers SORBS doesn't like. Then each operator can decide whether to implement a block based on the list or not. Your network, your decision. Of course, I fully expect no one to implement the block. But that is no reason to deny the ability to create the list. Now, I feel like quoting Pastor Niemöller so we can end this thread. :) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:25:23AM -0700, Scott Howard said: I'm no fan of SORBS, but at the end of the day (ignoring the issues like they had last week) they do what they say they do. Disagree. I have followed all the quasi RFC's Mich* Sullivan quotes to get my blocks unlisted, and after a good 20 hours work over a few weeks, with everything 100% compliant and all my reverses now with *.static.* and *.colo.* and whatever else (I've tried multiples), they're still not delisted. I run racks of gear in a colo, not broadband. Go figure. We hashed it out in a long thread on the list here to no avail. SORBS doenst do what it says it does, for many there's no way to get off their list except changing IPs. As much as you guys hate the noise here, I see other noises that I tolerate on the list for everyone's mutual eventual benefit. Im SURE someone could 'contact a yahoo network admin' in some other fashion than Nanog, Nanog is just the easiest way at that point to get ahold of someone. Talking about SORBS on Nanog is in the same boat at times. I'd tolerate it until the issue is fixed. /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
On 10/12/2010 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I kinda-sortta feel like many others who have posted here. This is a mail thing, not netops. Grow a pair and post under your own name. Is it even on-topic for NANOG? Etc. I even started typing a message to the effect of: even though I don't like SORBS, they should be allowed to publish a list and let others do as they please. But then I realized, that is all this anonymous person is asking. Or at least it could be. If iHate SORBS wants to create a (another?) list of prefixes which should not be routed, and put SORBS on it, he (she?) should be allowed, just as SORBS should be allowed to have a list of mail servers SORBS doesn't like. Then each operator can decide whether to implement a block based on the list or not. Your network, your decision. Of course, I fully expect no one to implement the block. But that is no reason to deny the ability to create the list. Now, I feel like quoting Pastor Niemöller so we can end this thread. :) Not to mention it's bad enough with congress trying to pass laws to make us network operators police the Internet, I don't need to police SORBS on top of it! Bret
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
Really the best thing to do is to just leave SORBS alone. The more idiotic bans they put into place with demands for $50 per IP per incident, the less trustworthy of an RBL they become. Most large network operations will end up ignoring them, or if they do use the data from their RBL, they will take it at a far lower metric in their overall anti-spam equasion. -j On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: On 10/12/2010 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I kinda-sortta feel like many others who have posted here. This is a mail thing, not netops. Grow a pair and post under your own name. Is it even on-topic for NANOG? Etc. I even started typing a message to the effect of: even though I don't like SORBS, they should be allowed to publish a list and let others do as they please. But then I realized, that is all this anonymous person is asking. Or at least it could be. If iHate SORBS wants to create a (another?) list of prefixes which should not be routed, and put SORBS on it, he (she?) should be allowed, just as SORBS should be allowed to have a list of mail servers SORBS doesn't like. Then each operator can decide whether to implement a block based on the list or not. Your network, your decision. Of course, I fully expect no one to implement the block. But that is no reason to deny the ability to create the list. Now, I feel like quoting Pastor Niemöller so we can end this thread. :) Not to mention it's bad enough with congress trying to pass laws to make us network operators police the Internet, I don't need to police SORBS on top of it! Bret
