Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
This is a long and somewhat complex story. I've been running my own mail for 15+ years or so, always on a fixed IP. A few years ago business picked up so I got some additional IP's from my supplier (BT); it turned out that they were decommissioned DUL's renewed as statics. Initially we jumped the hoops (both BT I) and after several fraught weeks the issue was resolved. Now we hit November 27th this year, suddenly I'm in SORBS again. Nothing changed this end, same IP, same RIPE entry, same everything... apart from SORBS, who, apparently, redid their db at the end of November. Happily I am now clean and clear. How did I really end up there? I've no real idea, I suspect the reload. I really do appreciate the work RBL's do, mostly; it's a thankless task and if the same wit were applied adversely a lot of money could be made. That they are moral and work as they do makes the life of all legit server admins much easier until they get too rabid. For those of you that supply reliable rbl's, please accept my profound thanks. Some maybe could do better, perhaps those should be carefully judged before inclusion into sa, or perhaps made an optional? All that said, SA isn't the direct problem. Admins blocking purely on, for example, SORBS, should maybe rethink their strategy and adjust scoring on rules within SA. All of the above is my opinion only; I don't think SORBS do a bad job, I just think they could do it better, and maybe accept that we all get it wrong sometimes... Just my 2.5p worth :-D Kind regards Nigel On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:41:40 -0500, Jason Bertoch ja...@i6ix.com wrote: On 12/14/2010 8:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/ I've seen the headaches of getting off SORBS, but how did you really end up there? While I agree that SORBS is not reliable enough for use at the MTA level, I've not seen one complaint from my customers over using SORBS in SA. Isn't the beauty of SA the fact that you can score gray areas and not be stuck with black or white? In case it's a mystery, SA scores are automatically generated based on results from the corpus. If those results weren't productive, the rules would either be disabled or their scores adjusted even lower. However, if the corpus isn't representative, the generated scores are in error, and that means we need more trusted submitters. Or maybe your traffic is relatively unique and you should already be generating your own scores? Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think it belongs here. /$.02
Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:04:18 +, corpus.defero corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote: Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think it belongs here. Indeed, and it's Lynford and his money grabbing cronies mostly behind it - hence it lacks sophistication. I guess we all have our opinions based on our experiences. Personally, I've had no issue with zen, though cbl does seem sometimes to have an issue with back-scatter. That said, proper spf should help stop back-scatter. Kind regards Nigel
Comment - GFI/SORBS
Hi All, Is sorbs going to be continued as a scoring option in SA? Having hit yet more problems with them I've zeroed their scoring. I found this a couple of days ago, maybe it can add weight. http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful/ Best to all Nigel
Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:58 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote: Hi All, Is sorbs going to be continued as a scoring option in SA? Having hit yet more problems with them I've zeroed their scoring. ... I hope so. I find SORBS wonderful in dealing with those troublesome mailers that have managed to by passage from the likes of $pamhau$$ and Barracuda myself. That said, I'd like to see the total removal of rules that favour that haven of transactional spammers - Return Path.
Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/
Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
On 12/14/2010 8:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/ I've seen the headaches of getting off SORBS, but how did you really end up there? While I agree that SORBS is not reliable enough for use at the MTA level, I've not seen one complaint from my customers over using SORBS in SA. Isn't the beauty of SA the fact that you can score gray areas and not be stuck with black or white? In case it's a mystery, SA scores are automatically generated based on results from the corpus. If those results weren't productive, the rules would either be disabled or their scores adjusted even lower. However, if the corpus isn't representative, the generated scores are in error, and that means we need more trusted submitters. Or maybe your traffic is relatively unique and you should already be generating your own scores? Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think it belongs here. /$.02 -- /Jason
Re: Comment - GFI/SORBS
Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think it belongs here. Indeed, and it's Lynford and his money grabbing cronies mostly behind it - hence it lacks sophistication.