Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:33:22PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 20:17, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > even if what you are saying isn't true, anyone suing would have to
> > prove deliberate malicious intent on your part before they could get
> > any compensation (in most jurisdictions - the internet is global,
> > different locations have different laws).
> You are mistaken Craig. Consider our case. A spam was sent with
> the sender's address forged as one of SORBS's honeypots. Although I
> lot of spam is rejected during SMTP delivery, this was accepted and
> subsequently bounced. Unlike reputable RBLs, SORBS does not filter
> bounces of forgeries.
so, their automation is fucked up. so is spamcop's (and it always has
been - e.g. mailing lists often get on spamcop's lists, mostly because
of dickhead users too stupid or lazy to bother to unsubscribe from
lists that they voluntarily subscribed to in the first place). that's a
reason to not use it and to convince other people to not use it, not a
reason to get all whiny and start threatening lawsuits or question their
freedom of speech and their right to list whatever IP addresses they
like for whatever reason they like.
i don't use the SORBS RBL because i disagree with their policies. i
don't use spamcop either because i think they are incompetent morons
(furthermore, i think anyone who uses them is also an incompetent
moron). i don't, however, dispute their right to publish their list. as
a matter of principle, their right to say whatever they like should be
instead of whining about it, try explaining the problem with their
automation to them and try proposing an algorithm or procedure which
would fix the problem. there's no guarantee that it will achieve
anything, but there's a far better chance than bullshit threats about
dubious law suits. any RBL worth their salt will have only one viable
response to threats like that - to dig in their heels and tell you to
fuck off. caving in to whiny lawsuit threats is not an option because
that would completely break the utility of RBLs.
also, threatening a law suit makes you look like a spammer or
spam-supporting scumbag ISP, whether you are or not. you might like
to think about what that will do to your reputation....you'd probably
find that some sites will block all mail from your domains and/or IP
addresses in protest at your actions.
> There need be no malicious intent. SORBS would be liable for damages
> for negligence should anyone have the time or money to invest in
> ridding the net of this nuisance.
no, because they don't actually block any mail (except on their own
servers - which they have every right to do). it is the individual mail
server operators who chose to use the SORBS list to block mail (rather
than simply score it with spamassassin or whatever) that actually
do the blocking - that is entirely outside of SORBS's control or
responsibility. if you have a problem with a mail server rejecting your
mail then take it up with the operator of that mail server.
you need to understand one basic fact: you do not have any right to
expect or demand that your mail will be accepted by any recipient mail
server. they can reject or block (or bit-bucket) your mail for any
reason they like, or no reason at all - they are under no obligation
whatsoever to accept your mail. their server, their rules - and you have
no say in it at all.
craig sanders <email@example.com> (part time cyborg)