Re: NEVER USE SORBS
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:40:08PM -0700, Steve Redlich wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> >>http://www.us.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?63.193.144.218 (captcha required)
> >>
> >> Dynamic IP Space (LAN, Cable, DSL & Dial Ups)
> >>Netblock: 63.193.144.0/21 (63.193.144.0-63.193.151.255)
> >>Record Created: Mon Jul 3 13:53:03 2006 GMT
> >>Record Updated: Thu Jul 20 03:38:13 2006 GMT
> >>Additional Information: This netblock was removed/delisted, future
> >>listings will supersede this entry.
> >><green>Currently inactive and not flagged to be published in DNS.</green>
> >
> >how is this proof that sorbs 'throws the baby out with the bathwater'?
>
> The added a /21 of static IPs probably because some Windows Loser doesn't
> know how to keep their machine virus free.
no, they added it because the dns records indicated that it was probably
dynamic. probably triggered by virus or spam as you suggest.
they de-listed it when shown evidence by the owner that it was
statically allocated.
so...what, exactly, is your problem with this scenario? looks like the
DUL working exactly as designed and exactly as documented.
> >it looks like a netblock that SORBS has de-listed.
>
> Yes. After two weeks when it should never have been listed in the first
> place.
if they received spam, and if the DNS PTR records were indicating
dynamic ip address space (as they were when i did a lookup this
afternoon) then they definitel *should* have been listed in the DUL.
this may have caused you some inconvenience, and you may not have likedf
it but you should know by now that there are lots of things in life you
wont like. learn to deal with it.
> >>It two weeks for them to refuse my delisting request, then accept my
> >>upstreams request for delisting. No matter what proof of a static IP
> >>an end user provides besides changing rDNS, SORBS ignores it. You
> >>need an AS number for them to accept an IP as static, if it doesn't
> >>meet their requirements.
> >
> >yes, precisely so. they state this quite clearly on their web page.
> >
> >and for good reason. spammers lie. regularly and repeatedly. why
> >should SORBS believe some end user who doesn't even own the IP address
> >concerned? if it really isn't a dynamic IP address then the actual owner
> >can contact SORBS and have it de-listed.
>
> If My IP was Spamming or was dynamic, It would be perfectly acceptable for
> SORBS to list it or have difficult delisting requirements. However, my IP
> is neither. I pay considerably more that my upstreams standard offering
> for the privileges and benefits of a static IP. (almost 4 times as much)
it looked like it was probably dynamic, so listing it until evidence to
the contrary was provided BY THE OWNER was a perfectly reasonable response.
> I'm pleased the new buyer of my upstream ISP was able to get me
> delisted from SORBS. It shouldn't take two weeks.
i'm glad you got it resolved. that proves that SORBS policy works as
documented. sometimes things take longer than you'd like them to. shit
happens. learn to deal with it.
> >it should not be particularly easy to get de-listed, and certainly
> >not because of a request by the end user.
>
> I provided SORBS with a long list of domains for which my IP is the MX
> and NS. Along with a netcraft report showing a linux server running
> apache for several years at my IP. All to no avail.
yes. their policy on who can request a delisting is quite clear and well
documented.
why should they make an exception for you? lots of pammers can show NS
and MX records for their domains, and many of them can prove they've run
linux for several years at the same IP. SORBS dont know you from a bar
of soap (or a spammer for that matter).
> SORBS is the only company where a reasoned email with facts was ignored.
1. SORBS isnt a company.
2. i'd ignore a whiny complaint that ignored the documented policy and
asked for a special exemption too.
> If you are not the RIR for the IP space with an AS number, don't
> bother contacting SORBS. Have your upstream contact them.
yes. they state this quit clearly on their web site. why is this so
difficult to understand?
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: