On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:35:05 +1100 (EST)
DaZZa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Care to elaborate?
>
> If sorbs are that bad, I'll stop using them if someone can give me a
> balanced argument as to WHY they're bad.
OK, here is a bounce that I got:
Connected to 208.137.128.6 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Mail from 144.140.70.20 refused by dnsbl
dnsbl.sorbs.net
Where 144.140.70.20 is one of the bigpond mail servers.
Looking it up on SROBS:
http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=144.140.70.20
144.140.70.20 found in Database of servers sending to spamtrap addresses
Address or Block 144.140.70.20 / 32
Description Subject: * failure notice
Entry Created Wed Jan 21 11:40:09 2004 GMT
Entry Last Seen Wed Jan 21 11:40:09 2004 GMT
Spam Seen From 144.140.70.20
Now everyone will recognise that Subject line as a line from one
of the latest windows virii.
So what happened was that some bigpond user has a machine with a virus,
and the virus sent an email to the SORBS spamtrap address.
I have no problem with people who filter out virii. I can even live with
the stupid fscking virus notification emails, but blacklisting a whole
ISP because one of their users has a virus is a bit much.
So I agree, SORBS is a least as fscked as bigpond. I can't do much about
SORBS, but I will be leaving bigpond ASAP.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"He who writes the code gets to choose his license, and nobody
else gets to complain" -- Linus Torvalds
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
