Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 08:48:17PM +0800, Shane Chrisp wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 April 2006 05:33, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > I think, Enterprises like Sorbs should kicked out of there business"
> Thats an interesting remark considering that SORBS is not a
> business. Its totally run by volunteers and they dont charge anyone.
> They ask for a verifiable donation to be made to a charity
i still dont like their de-listing policy but it's not the
blackmail/extortion that some disgruntled people like to make out.
> My dealings with SORBS as well as always been ammicable. I think a
> lot might have to do with the approach you take towards getting the
> listings dealt with.
i don't use their RBL (although i do use their excellent dynamic IP
list) because i strongly disagree with their de-listing policy.
i don't, however, dispute their right to create and manage their RBL
using whatever criteria they like...i just exercise my right to not use
and, IMO, that's the correct approach - if you dont like it, dont use it
and convince your correspondents to not use it....but dont blame SORBS
if your correspondents decide to continue using the SORBS list even
after they have been informed of any (real or perceived) deficiencies
in SORBS's policies. SORBS arent blocking your mail, they're just
publishing a list of IP addresses.
lawyers and censorship of SORBS is not a good solution and sets an
extremely dangerous precedent which could be used to harass any RBL -
they have a right to publish their list, and individual mail server
operators have the right to chhose to use it or not.
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> (part time cyborg)