Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Sunday 30 April 2006 11:33, Mike Bird wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
Why would sorbs be liable for this? It was your systems which forwarded the
spam onto the sorbs system which then accepted. Pretty simple case of you
relayed spam/backscatter and got listed. Sound like just about everyone here
speaking out against sorbs has a chip on thier should because they either
dont want to follow the practices to eliminate most of the spam out there.
I like the way you keep calling sorbs unreputable, yet so far not one person
has been able to raise a single piece of information other than complaining
that they are or have been listed or cant get out of the list. Maybe its you
who should be looking at your own operations and how you run them and how
others who dont have problems run thiers and make some changes.
Shane
Reply to: