Re: NEVER USE SORBS
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 06:03:15AM -0700, Steve Redlich wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> >>>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.
>
> You asked for proof of the baby being thrown out with the bath water.
and i still haven't seen it.
> I provided one. A /21 listed as being dynamic and then being delisted 17
> days later because it was really static.
yes. that SORBS policy working as documented. they looked like dynamic
IPs according to the rDNS, there was no other evidence to the contrary -
they *should* have been listed.
> (and from the ARIN rwhois - NON PORTABLE)
"NON PORTABLE" does not mean statically allocated. it means that it
belongs to the ISP, not to the customer (i.e. will not go with the
customer if they change ISP).
to highlight the obvious: all ISP-provided dynamic IP addresses are
non-portable.
> SORBS caused a problem for others and refused to quickly fix it.
looks like they did fix it. i didn't see any evidence of refusal.
> It's clearly non-dynamic. It doesn't belong on a dynamic list.
no, it's not clearly non-dynamic. according to the publicly available
information, it looks a lot more like a dynamic IP than a static IP. it
required more information to determine that it was non-dynamic and when
the ISP provided that information to SORBS, they de-listed it.
> SORBS DUHL lists both dynamic and static IP addresses. They ignore
> notifications of listing errors. QED
right. they corrected a mistake when notified. that's surely evidence of
them ignoring notifications.
try sticking to the facts. i know it weakens your case a lot if you cut
out the shrill hyperbole, but it does improve your credibility.
> It should be clear by now. Don't use SORBS.
like anyone else, you are at libery to choose not to use SORBS DUL if you want.
or to use it if you want.
i'll continue using it because it does an excellent job of blocking out
dynamic IP spam and viruses with little or no collateral damage.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: