On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 06:03:15AM -0700, Steve Redlich wrote: > You asked for proof of the baby being thrown out with the bath water. > I provided one. A /21 listed as being dynamic and then being delisted 17 > days later because it was really static. (and from the ARIN rwhois - NON > PORTABLE) Please stop spreading this disinformation about non-portable addresses. I _already_ explained this issue to you a few weeks ago, but I will restate it for the benefit of those who have not already been told this: NON-PORTABLE addresses have _absolutely_ _nothing_ to do with dynamic or static addresses. If an address block is PORTABLE, you can take the addresses with you when you change ISP. If the address block is NON-PORTABLE, your ISP owns the addresses and gets to take them back when you change to another ISP. If you used this portability argument to Sorbs then no wonder it took time. I hope people do not start claiming that Sorbs lists portable addresses. > It's clearly non-dynamic. It doesn't belong on a dynamic list. > SORBS DUHL lists both dynamic and static IP addresses. They ignore > notifications of listing errors. QED 63.193.144.218 not RBL filtered by dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net So you have kindly given an example that Sorbs actually delists people (even though your reverse still looks like a dynamic one). I do not see what the fuss is about.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature