...@declude.com] On Behalf Of
decl...@mail.net1media.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sorbs delisting
Does anyone have any experience getting delisted from Sorbs?
Over the weekend we got listed in the Sorbs Spam database. When I go
Hi,
Does anyone have a URL that works? I haven't been able to get
www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml, or www.au.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml to come up?
I remember reading something last year that they had trouble getting a
hosting sponsor - but later they were acquired by GFI.
Best Regards,
Andy
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:15 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website Down?
Hi,
Does anyone have a URL that works? I haven't been able to get
www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml, or www.au.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml to come up?
I remember reading something
Thanks Andrew - it was down for a long time - but now I can get it. Thanks
for reassuring me.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website
and the time and date of the error.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website Down?
It may have been down when you looked, Andy. It's
Is SORBS not a trusted spam database anymore ... multiple stories
being sent to me that they are not legitimate.
ie
http://www.iadl.org/sorbs/sorbs-story.html
http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/10/07/sorbs-sucks/
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
Anymore??? When were they trusted?
People that run a blacklist without a financial incentive generally are
agressive individuals that have lost their will for tollerance, and
don't want to be bothered by things like false positives. Those with
easy to maintain systems (primarily automated
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Thanks I just want to be clear that SORBS is different to ORDB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William
Any increase on False Positives with SORBS being experienced ?
David Barker
VP Operations Declude
Your Email security is our business
978.499.2933 x 7007 office
978.988.1311 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an
Increase from a lot of FP's to exactly how many more?
:)
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Any increase on False Positives with SORBS being experienced ?
David Barker
VP Operations Declude
Your Email security is our business
978.499.2933 x 7007 office
978.988.1311 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
11:08 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Increase from a lot of FP's to exactly how many more?
:)
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Any increase on False Positives with SORBS being experienced ?
David Barker
VP Operations Declude
Your Email security is our
We are getting A LOT
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:13 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Was working with a customer who was claiming
. 727.724.2610
fx. 727.724.2680
cl. 727.638.6208
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick
Baranowski
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:02 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
We are getting A LOT
Rick
Thanks I just want to be clear that SORBS is different to ORDB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William
Stillwell
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:35 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Orbs
I've got about 2 1/2 days of SORBS stats done, checking all but
SORBS-BLOCK (because I don't believe the methodology relates to spam).
The results are very telling.
SORBS
---
4377 - Unique Incoming Messages
1350 - Test Hits (30.8% of unique messages, multiple
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote:
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
came up...
Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully
on 127.0.0.6 and .8
PBH pbh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Smart Business Lists
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large
Cox cable I'll bet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Harvy
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else
that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.
Thanks
Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything
just use a weighted system where each test
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a system
because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would think that
most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of
firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't rely on open
relays in
Keith wrote:
Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else
that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.
Here's mine. Weights 0-12 are OK, weights 13-19 get bounced and 20+
gets deleted. Neither bounces nor deletes
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on
a system
because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would
://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Absolutely agreed.
pbh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Don't get me wrong, I will use .6
and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
alternative,
Whets using SBC as a provider got to do with ethics?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Phillip B. Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Two words: pink contracts
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd
- Smart Mail
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
Phillip wrote:
Two words: pink contracts
9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about?
I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book,
but that was incompetent tech installation and support. Once the
service is up its always been just great; for years running.
And
and destroy all copies of the original message.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Phillip wrote:
Two words: pink
Keith wrote:
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
came up...
Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully the 2001 date on that post is
indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise they're pretty much *all*
in league with the devil.
-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote:
I plugged
Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
Terry Fritts
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8
pbh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Smart Business Lists
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Careful on SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business
Lists
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one
http://www.cox.com/
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Glen Harvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
How are the false positive rates ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OSRELAY question.
Until a few days ago, I was using
: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
How are the false positive rates ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OSRELAY question.
Until a few days ago
36 matches
Mail list logo
