Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-05-03 Thread Bob Proulx
Lee Dilkie wrote:
 First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
 changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
 one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).

The choice of ISP for your client connection is unrelated to the
choice of ISP for your outgoing email.  You always have the option of
renting a server on the net and sending the email from there.  There
are many very cost effective plans available.  Use a low cost server
with a static IP on the net to relay mail from your dynamic addresses.

 Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
 something so false-positivity as a db for dynamic ip's is
 irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points and
 do a scan but an outright rejection?

I hard reject all incoming mail from addresses identified as belonging
to dynamic address pools.

Bob


Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-05-02 Thread --[ UxBoD ]--

- Original Message -
 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
 
  We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
  quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was
  involved in setting that up in Cyprus.
 
  Nigel
 Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the
 BTW agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only
 with someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just
 pee's over BT.

I was with IDNET and they were awesome. Only reason why I moved to Xilo was to 
lower my monthly costs. CW unbundled has been really good.  If cost is not a 
factor I would always recommend IDNET over anybody else!  They do still manage 
my BT line :)
-- 
Thanks, Phil


[OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread n . frankcom
Here's the chuckle

Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.

Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209

 --==-- Original Message Headers Follow --==--

 Received: from snakepit.bleh (snakepit.bleh [192.168.2.32])
   by blue-canoe.org.uk (envelope-sender ni...@blue-canoe.com) with 
 ESMTPA (MTSPro MTSSmtp 1.61)
   for users@spamassassin.apache.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:10 +0100
 From: Nigel Frankcom ni...@blue-canoe.com
 To: SpamAssassin users@spamassassin.apache.org
 Subject: [OT] Was SORBS
 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:09 +0100
 Organization: Blue Canoe Networks
 Message-ID: kfblt5t3h1mksks6taaa9r1kohe1psj...@blue-canoe.net
 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 X-Abuse-Report-URL: http://www.blue-canoe.net/abuse
 X-Envelope-Sender: ni...@blue-canoe.com
 X-Envelope-Receiver: users@spamassassin.apache.org


Here's my message :-D

Hi All,

First a big thanks to all those who offered advice and actively
assisted in getting my SORBS problem resolved.

BT have admitted they screwed things up with SORBS a while ago and, at
least on an individual level, regret that. That aside, they have
worked hard and with patience and professionalism to help me get this
resolved.

For those of you with BT accounts that find yourself in the same
situation, give me a shout and I'll happily pass on the info for the
people and departments I worked with... Someone may read the archives
:-D

Once again, thanks one and all for your help and support (and to the
list admins for not yelling at me to say this had nothing to do with
SA :-D)

Cheers all

Nigel


Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
 Here's the chuckle
 
 Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
 following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.
 
 Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
 http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
 

And has it taken you all that time to get BT to add this to their whois:
descr:  Single Static IP Addresses

Man, that is quality service.

I take it you've spoken with

phone:  +44 207 777 7766
fax-no: +44 1524 34523
e-mail: steve.r.wri...@bt.com
e-mail: ab...@bt.net
remarks:trouble:  1st Line Support
remarks:Please send delisting issues to btnet...@bt.net

... and they have actually spoken with SORBS?

The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
competent.

You may fair better taking this to the SPAM-L mailing list where you may
find someone that actually cares. Here you will only get generic opinion
and nothing tangible to help.

Spam-l mailing list - http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-l








Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Lee Dilkie

On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
   
 Here's the chuckle

 Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
 following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.

 Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
 http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209

 

 The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
 this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
 with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
 later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
 competent.

   

First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).

Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
something so false-positivity as a db for dynamic ip's is
irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points and
do a scan but an outright rejection?

-lee



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
 
 On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote: 
  On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:

   Here's the chuckle
   
   Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
   following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.
   
   Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
   http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
   
   
  
  The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
  this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
  with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
  later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
  competent.
  

 
 First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
 changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
 one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
 
 Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
 something so false-positivity as a db for dynamic ip's is
 irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points
 and do a scan but an outright rejection?
 
 -lee
 
Without wishing to come accross rude. I accept your points as they are,
in part, valid. But;
1. In this case the OP has a choice and has elected to trust  a
notoriously awful former state owned ISP to deal with it.
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level. Doing so they are usually
well aware of the caveats of using SORBS.
3. This is all irrelevant to the Spamassassin list. Like I say there may
be some opinion here, there may be mixed advice here, but there is no
resolution or listening ear here.
Michelle 'listens' to NANAE and SPAM-L last time I checked, but again
it's an issue for BT to deal with. The fact the OP has to go around
chasing this is a clear indication of failure of his ISP. It's blunt,
but it's really that simple.






Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Martin Gregorie
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
 First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
 changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
 one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
 
However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration. 

The OP can do exactly what I did. 

Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?


Martin





Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Daniel McDonald
On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:

 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
 First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
 changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
 one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
 
 However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
 his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
 copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
 as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
 connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
 didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
 
 The OP can do exactly what I did.
 
 Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
 locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
 your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?

For me, it was the case the last time I renegotiated my contract for my
business-class broadband at home.  Short of bringing in a T1 at
$600-$1000/month, I had exactly one choice for a provider that would provide
me with a static /29 and a SWIP record - the monopoly cable provider.  In
another year or so I'll see if the monopoly POTS provider can provide the
service I need - they promise the moon in their advertisements but balk
really fast when you start to ask specific, tangible questions.
-- 
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281






Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
 On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
 
  On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
  First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
  changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
  one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
  
  However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
  his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
  copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
  as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
  connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
  didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
  
  The OP can do exactly what I did.
  
  Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
  locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
  your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?
 
 For me, it was the case the last time I renegotiated my contract for my
 business-class broadband at home.  Short of bringing in a T1 at
 $600-$1000/month, I had exactly one choice for a provider that would provide
 me with a static /29 and a SWIP record - the monopoly cable provider.  In
 another year or so I'll see if the monopoly POTS provider can provide the
 service I need - they promise the moon in their advertisements but balk
 really fast when you start to ask specific, tangible questions.

I have a number of friends who concur that the US small-business
broadband scene is seriously poor so I feel your pain. I can remember
the hassle one guy had trying to get a static IP out of Warners. They
wanted to up his subscription by a factor of three.

In the UK we are really lucky in most cases that we can pick and choose
good providers and change fairly easily without it costing an arm and a
leg.



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:22:16 +0100, Martin Gregorie
mar...@gregorie.org wrote:

On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
 First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
 changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
 one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
 
However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration. 

The OP can do exactly what I did. 

Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?


Martin

We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
in setting that up in Cyprus.

I guess the bottom line is that this is always going to be an issue
and it's as much to do with how you deal with your upline suppliers as
how you deal with the lists (rbl etc).

I may not agree with them all on an individual basis, but life is what
it is, I have to work within the constraints imposed on me.

I cannot complain about SORBS, though I did, they have a fixed set of
rules. If I or my upline provider fails.. well, such is life. BT  for
what it's worth are very aware of their market and the issues, with
luck they and SORBS will open a dialogue.

As admins we face and deal with issues every day, sometimes it's nice
to know that others out there are listening and, where they can,
acting.

I have a lot of karma to repay :-D Now, if the SA list would let me
post from 'home'. I'd be copacetic :-D

All the best

Nigel


Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:

 We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
 quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
 in setting that up in Cyprus.

 Nigel
Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
over BT.




Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Nigel Frankcom

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, corpus.defero
corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:

On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:

 We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
 quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
 in setting that up in Cyprus.

 Nigel
Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
over BT.

Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
shebang home and now run it from my own server room. 

BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.

If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
'have you re-booted your router' etc.

Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
good friends).

IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.


Kind regards

Nigel


Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 17:19 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, corpus.defero
 corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
 
  We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
  quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
  in setting that up in Cyprus.
 
  Nigel
 Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
 agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
 someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
 over BT.
 
 Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
 After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
 shebang home and now run it from my own server room. 
There is nothing wrong with that - it makes good environmental sense as
well as security sense.
 
 BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
 exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.
Having spent 16 years with them I know the ins and outs. Openreach were
not allowed to show any favouritism to BT customers and went out of
their way for 'other licensed operators'. Many BT folk of X years
service found the notion of Openreach rather unpalatable and went out of
their way to be awkward to native BT customers. I'm not sure if that
attitude subset still exists but there really was an attitude towards
all things BT. But good on your for sticking with them. 
 
 If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
 'have you re-booted your router' etc.
That depends on who you go with. People like Zen, IDNET, aaisp, Newnet
are actually much better than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
much more knowledgeable. This SORBS issue would not even be an issue
with them as they had the brains to sort out their space - rather than
just try and cluelessly blindmug sell it so SOHO's.
 
 Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
 happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
 that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
 good friends).
I admire the spirit and good luck with it. If the Lib Dems win the
election they may find a whole in their mad ideas to offer treatment for
those with delusional misguided belief in BT syndrome. (DMBBT).
 
 IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
 for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.
You knew that would happen. Being a BT customer is nearly as bad as
being a spammer {joke} have a good weekend.
 
 
 Kind regards
 
 Nigel




Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:48:49 +0100, corpus.defero
corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:

On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 17:19 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, corpus.defero
 corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
 
  We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
  quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
  in setting that up in Cyprus.
 
  Nigel
 Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
 agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
 someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
 over BT.
 
 Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
 After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
 shebang home and now run it from my own server room. 
There is nothing wrong with that - it makes good environmental sense as
well as security sense.
 
 BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
 exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.
Having spent 16 years with them I know the ins and outs. Openreach were
not allowed to show any favouritism to BT customers and went out of
their way for 'other licensed operators'. Many BT folk of X years
service found the notion of Openreach rather unpalatable and went out of
their way to be awkward to native BT customers. I'm not sure if that
attitude subset still exists but there really was an attitude towards
all things BT. But good on your for sticking with them. 
 
 If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
 'have you re-booted your router' etc.
That depends on who you go with. People like Zen, IDNET, aaisp, Newnet
are actually much better than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
much more knowledgeable. This SORBS issue would not even be an issue
with them as they had the brains to sort out their space - rather than
just try and cluelessly blindmug sell it so SOHO's.
 
 Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
 happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
 that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
 good friends).
I admire the spirit and good luck with it. If the Lib Dems win the
election they may find a whole in their mad ideas to offer treatment for
those with delusional misguided belief in BT syndrome. (DMBBT).
 
 IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
 for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.
You knew that would happen. Being a BT customer is nearly as bad as
being a spammer {joke} have a good weekend.
 
 
 Kind regards
 
 Nigel


The world 'aint perfect, but we work with what we have. I'm just happy
it's sorted. With luck anyone that hits similar issues will pick up on
this and yell.

I may take a line or two off different suppliers to se how close
promises and actuality meet.

Best to all

Nigel



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread John Hardin

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nigel Frankcom wrote:

We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not 
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved 
in setting that up in Cyprus.


How about a cheap hosted VPS to handle your outbound mail? If that's all 
it's doing then you don't need all that much oomph.


--
 John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
  Individual liberties are always loopholes to absolute authority.
---
 8 days until the 65th anniversary of VE day


Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Per Jessen
Nigel Frankcom wrote:

 We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, 

Really?  Over ten years ago when I lived in the UK, my first provider
was Nildram, I'm sure they didn't run the local exchange.  Same here in
Switzerland - most of the fibre and copper belongs to Swisscom, then
Sunrise and Cablecom, but there are many companies who will sell you
the connectivity based on a resale of the copper/fibre.


/Per Jessen, Zürich



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Per Jessen
corpus.defero wrote:

 2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
 choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level. 

Same thing.  


/Per Jessen, Zürich



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread corpus.defero
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
 corpus.defero wrote:
 
  2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
  choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level. 
 
 Same thing.  
 
 
 /Per Jessen, Zürich
 
Key point is the admin has made a choice and is aware of that. On the
other hand they may be using SORBS in SA as part of a score shifter -
nothing more. The OP can ask the recipient to whitelist his IP if he has
a trading relationship with them. If not, then chances are his mail is
unsolicited regardless of his SORBS listing.

It's just a point of view - nothing more.



Re: [OT] was SORBS

2010-04-30 Thread Per Jessen
corpus.defero wrote:

 On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
 corpus.defero wrote:
 
  2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
  choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
 
 Same thing.
 
 
 /Per Jessen, Zürich
 
 Key point is the admin has made a choice and is aware of that. 

Agree. 


/Per Jessen, Zürich