Prelude: Please people, email is a very definite system and especially with blocking we as admins should be pedantic and exact about issues. Having said this, I would like to highlight that I actually did talk about listing and not delisting: On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:11:24AM -0400, John Kelly wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:00:03 +0300, Juha-Matti Tapio > <jmtapio@verkkotelakka.net> wrote: > > c) Sorbs lists IP addresses for low TTL values. > > None of these are true > Clearly they refuse to delist IPs with low TTL values. Your statement > is misleading. You are confusing listing criteria and delisting criteria. Sorbs does not specify low TTL as a listing criteria and I have yet to see anyone present proof of otherwise. And if TTL is not a listing criteria, it therefore is propably never the sole delisting criteria. A lot of people have claimed otherwise, but _that_ is misleading and not proved. Let's consider a hypothetical scenario: There are two hosts (Again note that I do not work for Sorbs and I am only speculating based on what I have read about Sorbs): Dyn-1-2-3-4.domain.tld and foobar.domain.tld. Both of these have a low TTL such as 7200. If the published Sorbs listing criteria are correct, Sorbs will list on DUHL the first address on-sight, but will not list the second one because there is no reason to believe it to be dynamic. Now if they both are actually statically allocated mail hosts, I do believe it is enough if the ISP gives the first host a real reverse name and bumps up the TTL temporarily (in order to publically state that this name change is not just a short term trick), and asks Sorbs for delisting. Once delisting is done and the first host has a real name, I do not see any reason why it would end up magically listed again if it keeps looking like a static host. The most vocal people tend to claim that this is too much work and impossible for them to do. While the TTL is not something I would personally do, Sorbs has decided to use it as some kind of automatic indicator of the willingness of postmasters to properly configure their systems. That is not an entirely unfair assumption. Now if I were wrong and Sorbs actually listed (as some people keep claiming) hosts with no other reason than low TTL, then I think they would be wrong in doing that and they would end up with _a lot_ of false positives. > > but I use DUHL personally and my $DAYJOB includes postmaster-duties > One postmaster who favors SORBS. I suppose there will always be a > small minority opinion, no matter what the topic. Out of tens of thousands of mails I have yet to have only one person who was caught as a false positive. If I were the only person blocking mail with a DUHL, so be it. And as some of you are apparently planning to do, please feel free to blacklist me for being such a huge problem that several mailinglist threads, lawsuit threats against Sorbs and custom blacklists are needed to try to make a small minority start receiving more spam :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature