Re: NEVER USE SORBS

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 05:19:02PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 15:38, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 
> > the only people i ever see whining about SORBS (or most other
> > RBL/DUL services) are a) spammers, b) incompetents, c) lazy slobs,
> > and d) self-centred jerks who think that their desire to operate
> > a dinky little mail server somehow requires all other mail server
> > operators to receive millions of spams and viruses just on the
> > off-chance that they might one day want to send them an email.
>
> SORBS throws the baby out with the bathwater.

i keep seeing this claim, or variants of it, but i've seen no evidence
whatsoever to support it. i've been using SORBS DUL for several years
now (I don't use the main SORBS RBL because i don't approve of their
de-listing policy - in particular, the charity donation) and in my
experience it has a remarkably low false-positive rate.


(BTW, note that while i don't approve of the SORBS RBL de-listing
policy, i don't in any way dispute their right to have whatever policies
they like. it's their opinion, their list, they can do what they like
with it. but i choose not to use it).

> If you want to use something more precise, try bl.spamcop.net or
> bl.ursine.ca.

i wouldn't ever use spamcop - their automation is broken to the point
of being moronic. i've seen way too many legitimate mailing lists end
up blocked by them because some idiot (who *DID* subscribe in the first
place) is too lazy to read & follow the how-to-unsub instructions at the
bottom of each message.

never heard of bl.ursine.ca. if it has DUL entries that SORBS doesn't,
it might be worth checking out but i dont see any point using a DUL that
has less than SORBS (IMO, it is woefully incomplete - there are a lot
more dynamic addresses which should be listed but aren't yet).


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)