Re: SORBS Contact

On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 02:13, Derek J. Balling wrote: > > > > Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250 > > OK' to > > the '.' after the DATA. You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that, > > and you > > haven't taken custody of that data... > > This is ridiculous (not yo

RE: SORBS Contact

Last time I saw someone so strenously crying that 'thou must accept mail' and trying so hard to justify why we should accept it was a low life toss pot scum sucking spammer, ooops I mean direct marketer, ahh stuf fit, both the same thing ...not implying anything here but if the shoe fits

Re: SORBS Contact

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 13:29, Robert Bonomi wrote: > If you want 'reliable' delivery, you _pay_ the recieving system (and the > intermediaries) for that service. Your lack of patience with something > other people _give_ you the free use of is, quite simply, an inexcusable > display of arrogance

Re: SORBS Contact

The thread was originally very benefitial (for me, as we use SORBS and provide some basic SMTP services), despite being somewhat off-topic for NANOG... but has now evolved into the Battle of Awful Analogies(tm). Discussions of this type always resort to the same analogy, for that matter: cars. I

RE: SORBS Contact

[combined responses] > You do realize that when we talk about "sending" data we are using > language in a very loose way, right? Data isn't actually sent. When I > "send" a packet of data, I still retain that data. If you lose it you > have only lost your copy of it, not mine. The pa

Re: SORBS Contact

On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 PDT, David Schwartz said: Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations. Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no contract with that person, you ha

Re: SORBS Contact

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 PDT, David Schwartz said: > Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations. > Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no > contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it. Of course,

Re: SORBS Contact

Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: David Schwartz wrote: Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations. Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it. The nonsens

Re: SORBS Contact

David Schwartz wrote: Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations. Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it. The nonsense is here! I am not a lawyer, bu

Re: SORBS Contact

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 -0700 "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for > > access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of > > my systems/resources "don't want" that cr*p, then I

Re: SORBS Contact

On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:11:58PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can shoot people who > don't buy anything. After all, their only obligation is to those who pay > them. But of course neither you nor they can do that. By setting up a > n

RE: SORBS Contact

> Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for > access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of > my systems/resources "don't want" that cr*p, then I do 'have an > obligation' > to _not_ deliver that traffic. Nonsense. You have tort

Re: SORBS Contact

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 9 22:00:58 2006 > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: SORBS Contact > From: Allan Poindexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:59:36 -0600 > > > Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I shou

Re: SORBS Contact

Michael Nicks wrote: Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one), to RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requiremen

Re: SORBS Contact

Ken Simpson wrote (on Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 09:09:33AM -0700): > > > Weighing in with an opinion, as bad as blacklists *may be*, at least > > they let the sender know something's up. Not in an artful way, to be > > sure, but they give some notice. The sender can do _something_, > > including dropp

Re: SORBS Contact

> Weighing in with an opinion, as bad as blacklists *may be*, at least > they let the sender know something's up. Not in an artful way, to be > sure, but they give some notice. The sender can do _something_, > including dropping his association with the recipient b/c it's not worth > his time and

Re: SORBS Contact

> >You're certainly welcome to encourage others not to use blacklists. Just > >understand that you have no right to complain when they decide to continue > >using those blacklists. > > > >Having said that, do understand that I don't think DNSBL's are a panacea, > >nor are their operators perfect.

Re: SORBS Contact

Steve Sobol wrote: Allan Poindexter wrote: Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and Matthew> from my networks? If you want to run a ne

Re: SORBS Contact

Allan Poindexter wrote: > Todd> There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of > Todd> the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked. > > So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially > ruin their lives? Weren't you the person complaining about

Re: SORBS Contact

Allan Poindexter wrote: > Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should > Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and > Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and > Matthew> from my networks? > > If you want to run a network of

Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:37PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There's at least one vietnamese ISP that has / had till recently set > "localhost" as rDNS for all their IPs. IIRC, that was fpt.vn; they replaced 'localhost' with t

Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:37PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >redundancy "bigisp-foo-bar-baz.dyn.bigisp.net". Worst among those who > >actually provide rDNS in SE Asia is probably tm.net.my, who name all of > >their customer

Re: SORBS Contact

- Original Message Follows - From: Allan Poindexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > this is fine. If you have agreed to participate in the > Internet you have an obligation to deliver your traffic. No you don't. They're your property. You bought them and you can do anything you want with them

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:51:58 -0400 "Derek J. Balling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Allan Poindexter wrote: > > At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM > > symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their > > hotmail users to ide

Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

At 15:47 + 8/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote: on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > >>On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > >>>

Re: SORBS Contact

Matthew Sullivan wrote: Mark Andrews wrote: Actually there can be false positive. ISP's who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks which have the qualification that the ISP is also supposed to only do it if they *don't* allow email from the block but the ISP's pol

Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote: > > on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > > > > > >>On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > > >> > > >>>This is also why I took the time to create: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>

Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: redundancy "bigisp-foo-bar-baz.dyn.bigisp.net". Worst among those who actually provide rDNS in SE Asia is probably tm.net.my, who name all of their customer PTRs 'tm.net.my'. Hm. Maybe encoding the IP in the PTR There's at least one vietna

rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > > >>On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > >> > >>>This is also why I took the time to create: > >>> > >>> > >>> >

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:29:52PM -0500, Robert J. Hantson wrote: > So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions > that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an > adminidictator? Yes. First, run a quality MTA -- that *requires* an open-source

Re: SORBS Contact

I'm not picking on William here; his message was just the last I saw in this thread which has gotten way out of hand. I have not discussed this thread with my fellow list admin team members either, though we can do that... But it would make our (the list admin team's) lives easier, as well as t

Re: SORBS Contact

On 10 Aug 2006, at 00:06, Matthew Sullivan wrote: [...] This is also why I took the time to create: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic- naming-schemes-00.txt Why is this information being encoded into the regular PTR records that already have another purpose

Re: SORBS Contact

There is one very key point to make in this, use of *any* RBL is up to individual networks, no one makes anyone use them, and those that do must know and accept all risks involved when dealing with DUL's, SORBS operates a zone 'just for vernom' as well, just like spamcop and njabl and others, but

Re: SORBS Contact

On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: This is also why I took the time to create: The reason I do not like RDNS naming scheme is because it forces one particular policy as part of t

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote: william> In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam william> filter manufacturer should go to jail... Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run a filter over his own mail if he wishes. An RBL is in fa

Re: SORBS Contact

hit "D" now, i've been trolled.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allan Poindexter) writes: > ... I have one email address that has: > > ... > > In short it should be one of the worst hit addresses there is. All I > have to do to make it manageable is run spamassassin over it. may the wind always be at yo

Re: Question for the List Maintaners -- (Re: SORBS Contact)

Steve Sobol wrote: Matthew Sullivan wrote: 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 hij

Re: SORBS Contact

> Sorry I wasn't very clear. The results in the hotmail example were > where the users said it wasn't spam but hotmail insisted it was. It > is possible for a user to indentify non-spam as spam. But if a user > says it isn't spam then it isn't no matter how much it might look like > it might be

Question for the List Maintaners -- (Re: SORBS Contact)

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 b

Re: SORBS Contact

william> In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam william> filter manufacturer should go to jail... Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run a filter over his own mail if he wishes. Jail? Not what I said. I said postal workers couldn't get

Re: SORBS Contact

On 8/10/06, Allan Poindexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Todd> There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of Todd> the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked. So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially ruin their lives? That's quite a s

Re: SORBS Contact

Allan Poindexter wrote: Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and Matthew> from my networks? If you want to run a network off in the c

Re: SORBS Contact

Derek> I'm gonna hold up the "I call bullshit" card here. Recipients Derek> most certainly *can* get it wrong. Sorry I wasn't very clear. The results in the hotmail example were where the users said it wasn't spam but hotmail insisted it was. It is possible for a user to indentify non-spam

Re: SORBS Contact

In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam filter manufacturer should go to jail... On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote: Todd> There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of Todd> the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked. So it is OK so

Re: SORBS Contact

Todd> There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of Todd> the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked. So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially ruin their lives? Todd> In the meantime my patience with email "lost" in the sea of Todd>

Re: SORBS Contact

On Aug 9, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Robert J. Hantson wrote: So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an adminidictator? Right now, the ONLY list we are using is that which is provided through s

Re: SORBS Contact

On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Allan Poindexter wrote: At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their hotmail users to identify their mail messages as spam or not. He said the users got it wrong some small percent

Re: SORBS Contact

On 8/9/06, Allan Poindexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of the moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email "lost" silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin. There are simple solutions to this. They do

RE: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Robert J. Hantson wrote: > So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions > that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an > adminidictator? > > Right now, the ONLY list we are using is that which is provided through > spamcop

RE: SORBS Contact

Christopher L. Morrow Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:19 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: SORBS Contact On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote: > moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email > "lost" silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote: > moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email > "lost" silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin. don't let some third party you have no relation to determine the 'fate' of your email/messages? with all blacklists you

Re: SORBS Contact

Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and Matthew> from my networks? If you want to run a network off in the corner by yourself this is

Re: SORBS Contact

Mark Andrews wrote: I wasn't thinking about SORBS. It was a general warning to only put blocks on lists where the usage matches the policy of the list. Ah my apologies I misinterpreted. I was thinking about a Australian cable provider that doesn't do

Re: SORBS Contact

Allan Poindexter wrote: The functionality of my email is still almost completely intact. The only time it isn't is when some antispam kook somewhere decides he knows better than me what I want to read. Spam is manageable problem without the self appointed censors. Get over it and move on.

Re: SORBS Contact

> Mark Andrews wrote: > > Actually there can be false positive. ISP's > > who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks > > which have the qualification that the ISP is > > also supposed to only do it if they *don't* > > allow email from the block but the ISP's > > policy e

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:42:32PM -0600, Allan Poindexter wrote: > Far more damage has been done to the functionality of email by antispam > kookery than has ever been done by spammers. That is not even good enough to be wrong. ---Rsk, with apologies to Enrico Fermi

Re: SORBS Contact

Mark Andrews wrote: Actually there can be false positive. ISP's who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks which have the qualification that the ISP is also supposed to only do it if they *don't* allow email from the block but the ISP's policy ex

Re: SORBS Contact

I'll post this back to NANOG as others are likely to comment similar ways... Michael J Wise wrote: On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: This is also why I took the time to create:

Re: SORBS Contact

Actually there can be false positive. ISP's who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks which have the qualification that the ISP is also supposed to only do it if they *don't* allow email from the block but the ISP's policy explicitly allows email

Re: SORBS Contact

Noel wrote: On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: We were hit by the requirement to include the word "static" in our DNS names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say "this /17 is only static IPs, one customer, one IP, no dhcp or other dynamics at all), we a

Re: SORBS Contact

Steve Sobol wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote: Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and providing transit to known criminal organisations. Hey Mat. You aren't wrong, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to de-list in an e

Re: SORBS Contact

On 8/9/06, Noel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 07:39, Aaron Glenn wrote: > That (blocking SMTP) could become illegal is some proposed "net > neutrality" legislation is passed. Man, I really butchered that one. I look so much smarter when I don't post on NANOG... hahaha tr

Re: SORBS Contact

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > We were hit by the requirement to include the word "static" in our DNS > names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say "this /17 is > only static IPs, one customer, one IP, no dhcp or other dynamics at all), > we actuall

Re: SORBS Contact

Allan Poindexter wrote: The functionality of my email is still almost completely intact. The only time it isn't is when some antispam kook somewhere decides he knows better than me what I want to read. Spam is manageable problem without the self appointed censors. Get over it and move on.

Re: SORBS Contact

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 07:39, Aaron Glenn wrote: > That (blocking SMTP) could become illegal is some proposed "net > neutrality" legislation is passed. > hahaha try enforcing that in other countries also, most networks are private (not state run) therefore we have the right to say yes/no what d

Re: SORBS Contact

Laurence> End users ought not to have the functionality of email Laurence> destroyed because originating SP's won't show due Laurence> diligence in preventing abuse of the network. This is crisis mongering of the worst sort. Far more damage has been done to the functionality of email by an

Re: SORBS Contact

On 8/9/06, william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Of course the root cause for all these still remains that certain OS vendor makes (and contines to) bad security design choices and this results in users of their system getting infected and being used as spam zombies. Combined with

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote: themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requirements. We were hit by the requirement to include the word "static" in our DNS names to sa

Re: SORBS Contact

Doesn't really surprise me to be frankly honest. :) The way their requirements are structured, they remind me a lot of a state agency. Best Regards, -Michael -- Michael Nicks Network Engineer KanREN e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o: +1-785-856-9800 x221 m: +1-913-378-6516 Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: O

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote: themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requirements. We were hit by the requirement to include the word "static" in our DNS names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say

Re: SORBS Contact

Michael Nicks wrote: Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one), to RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requirement

Re: SORBS Contact

Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one), to RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requirements. Best Regards, -Mi

Re: SORBS Contact

Albert Meyer wrote: I think we can sufficiently indict SORBS by saying that they are a poorly managed email blacklist which isn't used by anyone with a clue, without putting on our tinfoil hats. http://www.iadl.org makes some interesting claims, but anyone who puts Paul Vixie in the same lis

Re: SORBS Contact

I think we can sufficiently indict SORBS by saying that they are a poorly managed email blacklist which isn't used by anyone with a clue, without putting on our tinfoil hats. http://www.iadl.org makes some interesting claims, but anyone who puts Paul Vixie in the same list of offenders with Al

RE: SORBS Contact

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> 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. > > IMHO, it's not about making things 'better' - we don't expect > NANOG'ers to be any more altruistic

Re: SORBS Contact

Don't forget racketeering. "A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities." I think most network operators have learned about the ultra-liberal listing activities of RBLs these days. -Michael

Re: SORBS Contact

> > 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. IMHO, it's not about making things 'better' - we don't expect NANOG'ers to be any more altruistic than other folk. It's about c

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Steve Sobol wrote: > 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. Feh. Listings that are NO LONGER CORRECT, or in some cases, never were. Make sure brain is

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and > providing transit to known criminal organisations. Hey Mat. You aren't wrong, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to de-list in an efficient manner when you h

Re: SORBS Contact

william(at)elan.net wrote: That was old user of that ip block. The block has been deleted and ARIN now reassigned/reallocated it to somebody else. The file you need to watch (which gets updated when ip block previously hijacked is no longer an issue) is: http://www.completewhois.com/hijacked/h

Re: SORBS Contact

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote: Brian Boles wrote: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website (no action on t

Re: SORBS Contact

Brian Boles wrote: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website (no action on tickets opened). 64.79.128.0/20

Re: SORBS Contact

Someone is providing you transit.. what gives? :) Matthew Sullivan wroteth on 8/8/2006 4:33 PM: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Michael Nicks wrote: Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are "good

Re: SORBS Contact

Michael Nicks wrote: Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are "good" and "bad". Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and providing transit to known criminal organisations. / Mat

Re: SORBS Contact

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, S. Ryan wrote: I have recommended to every client in the past to drop any ISP that uses SORBS, but amazingly there are still plenty of clueless ISPs out there that use SORBS. Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il Even worse if your ISP uses it and demands you ask t

Re: SORBS Contact

Even worse if your ISP uses it and demands you ask the 'offender' to get 'themselves' removed. Michael Nicks wroteth on 8/8/2006 7:27 AM: Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are "good" and "bad". -Michael Brian Boles wrote: Can someone from SORBS contact me offli

Re: SORBS Contact

Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are "good" and "bad". -Michael Brian Boles wrote: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed followi

Re: SORBS Contact

If you are blacklisted due of SPAM, and this happens often when you are an ISP, there is not automatic process. Stefan On Tuesday 08 August 2006 11:36, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Stefan Hegger wrote: > > We have the same problem. We are blacklisted and I filled out the > > webform. I got an emai

Re: SORBS Contact

We have the same problem. We are blacklisted and I filled out the webform. I got an email regarding ticket number and account/password to track the ticket. But it seems that nobody is working on it. Best Stefan On Monday 07 August 2006 20:54, Brian Boles wrote: > Can someone from SORBS conta