Re: NEVER USE SORBS
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:03:36PM -0700, Steve Redlich wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >>SORBS throws the baby out with the bathwater.
> >i keep seeing this claim, or variants of it, but i've seen no evidence
> >whatsoever to support it.
> http://www.us.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?18.104.22.168 (captcha required)
> Dynamic IP Space (LAN, Cable, DSL & Dial Ups)
> Netblock: 22.214.171.124/21 (126.96.36.199-188.8.131.52)
> Record Created: Mon Jul 3 13:53:03 2006 GMT
> Record Updated: Thu Jul 20 03:38:13 2006 GMT
> Additional Information: This netblock was removed/delisted, future
> listings will supersede this entry.
> <green>Currently inactive and not flagged to be published in DNS.</green>
how is this proof that sorbs 'throws the baby out with the bathwater'?
it looks like a netblock that SORBS has de-listed.
> It two weeks for them to refuse my delisting request, then accept my
> upstreams request for delisting. No matter what proof of a static IP
> an end user provides besides changing rDNS, SORBS ignores it. You
> need an AS number for them to accept an IP as static, if it doesn't
> meet their requirements.
yes, precisely so. they state this quite clearly on their web page.
and for good reason. spammers lie. regularly and repeatedly. why
should SORBS believe some end user who doesn't even own the IP address
concerned? if it really isn't a dynamic IP address then the actual owner
can contact SORBS and have it de-listed.
> FYI, The TTL on my rDNS is still 7200. Far below SORBS delisting
if you want to do stupid cache-busting things then you have only
yourself to blame for the consequences. e.g. if you get listed in the
SORBS DUL and find it difficult to get de-listed because of your TTL
then you have only yourself to blame.
> I eventually set my webserver (where I have have control of rDNS) as a
> smarthost because SORBS didn't like my upstreams naming convention.
well then, you finally figured out how to get mail working correctly
from a dynamic IP address - use a smarthost. preferably one under your
> One even bounced mail to postmaster.
so? you say that as if there's something wrong in doing that. i have
several exceptions to my anti-spam rules for my abuse@ and postmaster@
addresses, but i'm no more willing to receive spam/viruses on those
addresses than i am on any other address. and those addresses get
spammed at least as often as my other addresses - it's not like spammers
make any effort to avoid spamming them...quite the contrary. they seem
to like spamming them, possibly because they are required (postmaster@)
or strongly recommended (abuse@) addresses for EVERY domain.
> If it was easier to get delisted, SORBS DUHL might be OK, but as is,
> It's a royal pain in the u-know-where to get off their list when you
> don't belong there.
SORBS DUL is a list of dynamic IP addresses. it should not be
particularly easy to get de-listed, and certainly not because of a
request by the end user.
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> (part time cyborg)