On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:24:09PM +0300, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 10:13:35AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > I run a mailserver, which has a static allocation. Reverse DNS matches > > forward DNS. However, TTL was lowered on the records so we could move > > various servers to a new range. We then found that the entire /24 was > > blocked as being 'dynamic', despite the range being clearly PI space. > > What was the cause of the listing? > > Once you have moved around the servers why not raise the TTL so that you can > get unlisted (assuming you have already dealt with the cause of the listing)? You may have the time for all this arbitrary rules interpretation that you seem to enjoy but in the real world people have jobs to do and it rapidly becames tiresome. Neil's example is exactly the same as others I have come across and sadly it is silly paranoid policies like this that mean that SORBS DUHL is not as useful as it could be. When the WHOIS contact for the IP allocation says it isn't dynamic and servers are allowed then that should be enough. SORBS could keep the over-zealous listings for its other zones. Andy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature