RE: NEVER USE SORBS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Sanders [mailto:cas@taz.net.au]
> Sent: 27 July 2006 10:56
> To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> Subject: 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>
Looks like that IP is also listed by http://block.blars.org/
For exactly the same reason. I would also have considered that would be a
dynamic ip address by the domain and the way its is done.
Who else would not ?
host 63.193.144.218
218.144.193.63.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
adsl-63-193-144-218.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net.
Many people have shouted lots at SBORBS so far on this list.
But at least they are trying actively to fix a problem that needs to be
fixed. Like a few other people are trying todo using dnsbl and spf and some
other methods.
Until the spam problem is fixed the likes of sorbs will always exist. Its
rules are 99% ok for using except for the dynamic IP listings. These don't
seem to make sense because I don't think its possible to get a whole list of
IP that are static and not.
Some people have mentioned sueing and that sorbs is breaking the law ?
Could somebody who has made one of these statement please explain how ?
Reply to: