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
