RE: NEVER USE SORBS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Sanders [mailto:cas@taz.net.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 8:39 AM
> To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: NEVER USE SORBS
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:29:39AM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > Shane Chrisp wrote:
...
> > Facts:
> > - I've successfully run my own mail server on a static IP
> for around 3
> > years;
> > - recently I have had failed email to and from optusnet.com.au and
> > westnet.com.au domains
> > - my ISP fought with SORBS to delist my static IP [along with many
> > other staic IPs]
> > - SORBS relisted my block and my ISP had to fight again....
I assume the OP is talking about being listed in the SORBS DUHL (dynamic IP
listing) RBL - through his reference to Static IPs being listed. Let's keep
in mind there are many different SORBS RBLs.
> some more facts:
>
> - you were too lazy to bother having correctly configured
> DNS for around 3 years.
If indeed this is the SORBS DUHL RBL, "correctly configured" comes down to a
"standard" devised by Matthew Sullivan of SORBS
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes
-00.txt), suggesting people on static/dynamic IPs should somehow indicate
which they are in their rDNS. DNS can be "correctly" configured and still
get listed in the DUHL. The OP's only fault was that he didn't comply with
SORB's own arbitrary policy.
> - you think this justifies whining in public
It sure does - your comment is completely false. The OP still could have a
"correctly configured" rDNS (I refer to actual RFCs as standards w.r.t. DNS)
and still get listed in SORBS DUHL.
> 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.
Well, you're quite condescending, considering how you didn't know this.
Colour me 'incompetent' I guess, if your statement is true.
Cheers,
~Rhett
Reply to: