On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:18:50AM +0300, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote: > What I actually meant that (at least I have read so) SORBS does not list > because of TTL. It is a delisting criteria, I went around and did a bit of digging and found this quote from Matthew Sullivan: : The rDNS scanner pays absolutely no attention to the TTLs when deciding to : mark a network and/or address for listing or delisting (it may also ignore a : network if it cannot decide either way). I think this means that IP addresses do not end up in SORBS DUL because of any TTL values. So the TTL is only relevant when trying to get out from the list after the initial reason has been fixed. I think many people oppose the TTL issue because there is misunderstanding about it's effect on listings. Although I acknowledge that people have been having trouble finding out the real cause of their listings. But I still have some faith in humanity and I believe that showing willingness to work with them and displaying understanding of the issues helps getting unlisted from pretty much any list. Getting worked up usually does not help. I am not affiliated with SORBS and therefore I don't know how exactly they handle their support system, but I do know that the DUL has worked well for me and in comparison to some other lists (for example SPEWS), I have seen very little collateral damage from SORBS DUL usage compared to it's effectiveness. DUL is kind of in line with the Finnish government's recommendation for ISP's to allow direct outgoing SMTP only from those consumers who have either displayed enough understanding about email or who have been informed about the risks informed. The policy has worked and it would be nice is such policies would be adopted in other countries as well so that DUL's would become unnecessary.
Description: Digital signature