On October 21, 2013 at 08:58 r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) wrote:
I sent an email to SORBS some time ago and I received this yesterday
Reason: unable to deliver this message after 135 days
Got to admit that SORBS email servers aren't timely but they are persistent.
SORBS only
On 07/04/12 05:11, David Miller wrote:
RBLs don't block emails. Operators of mail servers who use RBLs block
emails (in part) based on information from RBLs.
If only one could convince end-users of this fact. More often than not,
end-user simply sees the company that they pay to provide
i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not
even a single person
while i would not dispute what you think you think, i think you are
thinking quite incorrectly
randy
]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'Sam Oduor'; Chris Conn; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: SORBS?!
This is often the only way to get peoples attention and get action.
Providers dont care about individual /32's and will let them sit around and
spew nigerian scams and pill
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:31:47 -0400, Drew Weaver said:
That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something that a
reputation list finds objectionable and take it down ourselves than have
Senderbase set a poor reputation on dozens of IaaS customers.
If it was industry-wide
On 4/4/12 3:36 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
It's best to not complain about it and just accept it as a fact of life
your IPs are listed on SORBS and move on. It's not the end of the world.
It turns into a customer service issue for most service providers.
Eh, guess they'll just have to
On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:54 , Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/4/12 3:36 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
It's best to not complain about it and just accept it as a fact of life
your IPs are listed on SORBS and move on. It's not the end of the world.
It turns into a customer service issue for most service
On 4/6/12 9:02 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
No, they don't. Many DNSBLs use self-service tools. Someone has to
write the tool, but the rest is automated. Total cost is power
space, which is frequently donated (I have personally donated some
myself to DNSBLs I thought were well run).
Proxy
This seems like a very 1999 anti-spam attitude.
I have been doing anti-spam a long long time - literally since before Canter
and Siegel (who I had as customers...) and before j...@cup.portal.com.
It's not 1999 anymore. Patrick is not the enemy. Your attitude is worrying. The
I am not
On 4/6/12 9:49 AM, George Herbert wrote:
This seems like a very 1999 anti-spam attitude.
I have been doing anti-spam a long long time - literally since before
Canter and Siegel (who I had as customers...) and
befor...@cup.portal.com.
It's not 1999 anymore. Patrick is not the enemy. Your
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A week?
You may have the right to list them and
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:55:35 -0400, Drew Weaver said:
That is again, not true.
Senderbase's listings don't correlate to any public information so it's pretty
much impossible to pro-actively protect ourselves from having our IPs set to
poor.
You missed the point - if it was industry standard
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of
something that a reputation list finds objectionable and take
it down ourselves than have Senderbase set a poor
reputation on dozens of IaaS customers.
I think the
Weaver
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something
that a reputation list finds objectionable and take it down ourselves
than have Senderbase set a poor
On 4/6/2012 12:35 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
If it was industry-wide standard practice that just notifying a provider
resulted
in something being done, we'd not need things like Senderbase, which is after
all basically a list of people who don't take action when notified...
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com wrote:
So you're suggesting that hosting companies do what?
I believe I'm suggesting you use SORBS as your canary in the coal mine
and otherwise ignore them.
But if you're asking what hosting companies could do to proactively
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Ever wonder why it takes time for DNSbl's to process removals,
sometimes very long periods? Well, someone's gotta pay for that time
the removal person does it (and I have yet to see a dime of
compensation for the time I spend).
No, they don't.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Landon Stewart wrote:
If the purpose of blacklist is to block spam for recipients using that
blacklist then a /32 works. If the purpose of a blacklist is to annoy
providers then a /24 works. The most reputable and useful blacklists IMHO
are Spamhaus and Spamcop - they
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 05/04/2012 17:48, goe...@anime.net wrote:
But they will care about a /24.
I'm curious as to why they would want to stop at /24. If you're going to
take the shotgun approach, why not blacklist the entire ASN?
It's a
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
If it was industry-wide standard practice that just notifying a provider
resulted in something being done, we'd not need things like Senderbase,
which is after all basically a list of people who don't take
Brielle Bruns wrote:
Unfortunately, the apathy of providers, backbones, and network operators
in general have created an environment that the almighty buck rules
everything.
I totally agree with pretty much everything in this email.
I also agree that blocking whole /24 or bigger when spam
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Brielle Bruns wrote:
to come from such a block is more often than not a necessity. It's very
unlikely to see 1 abuser in between an otherwise perfectly behaving network
neighbourhood.
That's kind of vague to say it's
i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not even
a single person
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Brielle Bruns wrote:
to come from such a block is more
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:48:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
That's kind of vague to say it's unlikely to see 1 abuser. What is
the probability that
more IPs in the same /24 are likely to harbor abusers, given that you have
received abuse from one IP?
It's similar to pirhanas or cockroaches -
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming
and Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from sorbs after resolving the problem
amicably. Sorbs responded well on time.
*Your request appear to have been resolved. If you have
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Chris Conn
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming and
Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from sorbs after resolving
]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Chris Conn
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming and
Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from sorbs after resolving the problem
On 05/04/2012 17:48, goe...@anime.net wrote:
But they will care about a /24.
I'm curious as to why they would want to stop at /24. If you're going to
take the shotgun approach, why not blacklist the entire ASN?
Nick
That's probably a better idea.
I moved into a /24 ip block that was SWIPed to me that they reported was
dynamic cable/DSL users (no spam history, mind you). Didn't matter, I
couldn't send e-mail.
When trying to get it delisted I had a TTL on the zone that was
incompatible with their standards
Good luck. Last time we heard back from them they were trying to extort
us for $18,000 to have a huge block of Ips removed. They were listed from
the day we received them from arin. After that we gave up on SORBS.
On 4/4/12 3:53 PM, Chris Conn cc...@b2b2c.ca wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone from
They're still functional, still used by companies but I wouldn't make
any observation on them running 'well'. A friend's office IP range got
blocked and unblocked recently by them so they do seem to remove entries.
Beyond that on NANOG you're pretty much into light blue touch paper and
On 4 April 2012 12:53, Chris Conn cc...@b2b2c.ca wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone from SORBS still listening? We have a few IP addresses here
and there that are listed, one in particular that has been for a spam
incident from over a year ago. The last spam date is 03/05/2011
according to their
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:55:46PM -0700, Landon Stewart wrote:
On 4 April 2012 12:53, Chris Conn cc...@b2b2c.ca wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone from SORBS still listening? We have a few IP addresses here
and there that are listed, one in particular that has been for a spam
incident from
Landon Stewart wrote:
I think we should all just NULL ROUTE all of their IP space on our borders
to get their attention.
Yeah you're free to do that, as well as complain about it and SORBS in
turn is free to put whatever the hell they feel like on their block
lists and not remove it at all,
Hi,
We had an issue with one of our old subnets which was used as a
pool for dynamic dial-up in the past, which we now use for virtual hosting.
It took a few me a few hours but I was able to get it removed from
the DUHL list.
( And a few walk around the block to calm me down
On 4 April 2012 14:21, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Landon Stewart wrote:
I think we should all just NULL ROUTE all of their IP space on our borders
to get their attention.
Yeah you're free to do that, as well as complain about it and SORBS in
turn is free to put whatever the
On 4 April 2012 14:27, Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net wrote:
As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at http://support.sorbs.net/which
use the same username/password as
https://www.us.sorbs.net. You can follow up there with your ticket #, if
their robot is being a bit too fascist. (
On 2012-04-04 17:33:
Hi,
Actually knowing Chris, and his outfit, that 18k request seems
unwarranted :(
As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at http://support.sorbs.net/
which use the same username/password as https://www.us.sorbs.net. You can
follow up there with your
Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Re: SORBS contact
Message-Id: 8beae4f1-acd0-4408-9f75-264aff04d788@brw-abs-office
Recipient: ge...@trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein...@trinity.edu
---BeginMessage---
Nope .. just like pain and suffering :(
- Original Message
Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
Message-Id: 1d95a7a9-8340-45e7-b803-03f1827326e1@brw-abs-office
Recipient: ge...@trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein...@trinity.edu
---BeginMessage---
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:17:02 CDT, trinity.edu's mailer, *not* Brian R.
Watters said:
Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
Message-Id: 1d95a7a9-8340-45e7-b803-03f1827326e1@brw-abs-office
Recipient: ge...@trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:18:17 EDT, William Herrin said:
2. I assume the subscription request came from a web page because if
it was from an email request you received then you ignored my SPF
records when generating the confirmation request. That was OK in 2001
but in 2011 you ought not be
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
That sort of shoots your If Woody had gone straight to the
SPF record, none of this would have happened claim.
My WHAT claim? You asked if I wanted mailing list confirmation
requests that arrive at my mail server to have a non-null
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:36:22 EDT, William Herrin said:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
That sort of shoots your If Woody had gone straight to the
SPF record, none of this would have happened claim.
My WHAT claim?
What you said:
2. I assume the subscription
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard
Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
administrator of a
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@*
Paul Graydon wrote:
It's pretty much customer service 101 to ensure that you keep your
communications as neutral and polite as possible, regardless of how
frustrated or vilified you feel by the person you're supporting, and
regardless of how tired you are of accusatory tickets. Being snarky
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:48:44 EDT, William Herrin said:
Correction: It's a standard way to denote that this mail is a bounce
report.
It's *not* just bounce reports (in particular, DSNs and MDNs are not
non-delivery (bounce)
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:52:50 +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
reference to bounce messages and mailing lists.) The registration email
has a null return path because people will put in forged addresses and
we don't want them to do that in the first place, and if they do it, we
certainly don't
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to adopt standards that are part of proposed RFC's, not
official by any
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:46:13 EDT, William Herrin said:
Point taken. Bounce reports, temporary failure reports and successful
delivery reports. Nevertheless, it still isn't for other
programmatically generated mail. In fact, the next paragraph in RFC
5321 4.5.5 says:
All other types of
Ken Chase wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to adopt standards that are part of proposed RFC's,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.netwrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
[snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list. As per
my previous email, the webservers (all of them)
On 7/30/2011 2:33 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Ken Chase wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
mailto:matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
[snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list.
A valid and well put argument. I don't know what we do with stuff to
webmaster@ however I do know that it is possible that messages to it
will go into the spamtrap system. (the spamtrap system has multiple
entry points, and a mail going in does not guarentee a listing, but it
is likely,
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:16:23 PDT, Brian R. Watters said:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due to
the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda thinks
its SPAM
Please clarify. Are they sending
MAIL FROM:(syntactically
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:46 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And you might want to fix it, since your users will never get a bounce notice
from any RFC-compliant mailer - even if they *wanted* to know that their mail
wasn't delivered. is the RFC-standard way to denote this mail is a
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:48:44 EDT, William Herrin said:
Correction: It's a standard way to denote that this mail is a bounce
report.
Correction to your correction: What the RFC actually says:
4.5.5. Messages with a Null Reverse-Path
There are several types of notification messages that
William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:46 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And you might want to fix it, since your users will never get a bounce notice
from any RFC-compliant mailer - even if they *wanted* to know that their mail
wasn't delivered. is the RFC-standard way to
William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration
process is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
As I recall it, you can manually
On 29/07/2011 22:55, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Friendly or non friendly response is usually gaugable in advance by the
tone of the initial email.
Which is usually gaugeable in advance by the tone of the customer
complaints that precipitated contact with SORBS in the first place.
Email is such a
On 07/29/2011 12:24 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/07/2011 22:55, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Friendly or non friendly response is usually gaugable in advance by the
tone of the initial email.
Which is usually gaugeable in advance by the tone of the customer
complaints that precipitated contact
On 28 July 2011 14:16, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due
to the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda
thinks its SPAM .. just to darn funny .. I have whitelisted their domain so
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Email is such a lousy medium for this. We're all much more decent people
in person than over snarky emails.
Speak for yourself!
Landon Stewart wrote:
On 28 July 2011 14:16, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due
to the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda
thinks its SPAM .. just to darn funny .. I have
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
administrator of a service. A failure to support
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 PDT, Brian R. Watters said:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration process
is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
You're new here, aren't you? :)
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Previous discussion on NANOG:
You want to speak to SORBS? Good luck with that. Unless you are Chuck
Norris; Chuck Norris can speak with SORBS anytime he wants :)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.netwrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com
Last time I went through this... first it was they didn't like my RDNS, so I
added Static to it. Then it was my ISP didn't SWIP the record properly,
they fixed this. Then after that they said my DNS TTL was too low.
The final straw was the DNS TTL, we used it for failover to accommodate a
brwatt...@absfoc.com, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:47:56 PM
Subject: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
You want to speak to SORBS? Good luck with that. Unless you are Chuck Norris;
Chuck Norris can speak with SORBS anytime he wants :)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, William Pitcock
Nope .. just like pain and suffering :(
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
To: Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:44:29 PM
Subject: Re: SORBS contact
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 PDT, Brian R
He's the most interesting man in the world...SORBS is on HIS list and
can't get off.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool Die|
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:26:19PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Could a human being from SORBs please contact me off-list? Your robot isn't
functional, and you are listing one of our ARIN allocations as dynamic, when it
is not.
(Yes, I know that 'no one uses' SORBs. Customers don't
mailop list? I run a dnsbl myself (dronebl to be exact), call me dumb or
whatever, but never heard about that list.
In fact, I am also working on granting AS admins to be able to list
entries in their ranges etc, so if you are listed in whois as
administrator of an AS and you want access to
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes
after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was
finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly
minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the
/24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes
after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was
finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes
after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was
finally
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2011 9:56:20 AM
Subject: Re: SORBS contact?
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011
karma for them to get past.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Atkinsst...@blighty.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2011 9:56:20 AM
Subject: Re: SORBS contact?
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some
progress.
I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad
thing. They might do better by rebranding though.
On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some
progress.
I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad
For future reference: you're much more likely to elicit a useful
response by using the mailop list, since you'll be addressing
a mixed audience of mail system operators, DNSBL operators, software
authors, etc., all of whom are focused on mail and not network operations.
---rsk
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:31:21PM -0400, TR Shaw said:
One might wonder about the quality of the mail admins that rely on SORBS
You might try http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support
One might also do other things that are to no avail,
one of such things is to read this and
telmn...@757.org wrote:
Did SORBS really cause you that much pain?
Yes. We purchased colo space for some systems that didn't need high
class of service (mostly development systems.) The IP space in a
former lifetime was a dialup pool for analog modems.
We of course changed the reverse DNS
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
telmn...@757.org wrote:
Did SORBS really cause you that much pain?
Yes. We purchased colo space for some systems that didn't need high class
of service (mostly development systems.) The IP space in a former lifetime
Ken Chase wrote:
Anyone got some pointers on how to get off SORBS' Dynamic IP lists?
We've followed their RFC proposed static reverse DNS assignment naming and all
elements of their FAQ.
We are not spammers. The /24 in question isnt listed on any RBLs except SORBS
DUL.
We've submitted
Ronald Cotoni wrote:
At the same time, I never hear this about spamhaus or outblaze. Go
figure :( Maybe your system is too confusing and you might want to
take a survey and revamp it to something a bit more functional.
I have never heard it about Outblaze, but I have heard at least we
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
I'm now marking this request as 'answered' as I think there's nothing
more for me to do. If you feel otherwise, please reply to this message
to re-open your ticket. In particular, if you change your rDNS
information.
Fair enough, but it wasnt just me.
I have the customer who submitted his own tickets as well, as well as NAC.net
who has admins (an email admin, actually), who seems to know his way around RBLs
and the current state/reputation/happenings in the spam/RBL/mail world.
Customer has posted these
On 15/01/2010 16:14, William Herrin wrote:
Is it bad English? Is it not clear?
No, it is not clear.
It's perfectly clear.
Can anyone else give better wording
that might result in less of an issue?
Please reply to this message to reopen your ticket and escalate your
case to a live human
In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 05:06:18PM +0100, Michelle
Sullivan wrote:
The common a reoccurring issue is the response by the robot has given
the next logical step to progress any delisting request (as has been
stated here recently, in another thread).. and the requester has
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM, William Hamilton b...@edisys.co.uk wrote:
Is it bad English? Is it not clear?
No, it is not clear.
Try as I might I really can't see what is not clear here...
It isn't clear that there's a way to reach a human being at sorbs
other than complaining
Michelle,
Thanks for your email. Please specifically look at ticket 260695. I
created the ticket on January 5th at about 1:30EST. Immediately I got my
response from the robot.
I replied a few minutes later with:
67.196.137.188/32
TTL is right. PTR is right.
From your email, it is my
Ken Chase wrote:
Fair enough, but it wasnt just me.
I have the customer who submitted his own tickets as well, as well as NAC.net
who has admins (an email admin, actually), who seems to know his way around RBLs
and the current state/reputation/happenings in the spam/RBL/mail world.
Customer
On 1/15/2010 10:26 AM, William Hamilton wrote:
On 15/01/2010 16:14, William Herrin wrote:
Is it bad English? Is it not clear?
No, it is not clear.
It's perfectly clear.
Can anyone else give better wording
that might result in less of an issue?
Please reply to this message to reopen your
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
