how-to block ads
|
JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs:
 ·Vonage
| SORBS got my buddy My friend in Alaska has been having problems sending me pictures and stuff. I thought I had some kind of email problem.
He was finally able to email me the error message he was getting. It looked like this.
> Delivery attempt history for your mail:
>
> Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:49:51 -0800 (AKDT)
> myemailchanged.net: smtp;451 Spam Received See:
»www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?209.165.130.11
I went to the link and sorbs tells me the ip is blacklisted.
I think this is his providers mail server. gci.net
Is there anything he can do other than complain to his email provider?
Im on comcast and everything seems good here. | |
|  
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs: | Re: SORBS got my buddy he should contact sorbs... they are the one blocking him... what is his ISP going to do?
His ISP can't do jack.
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| | Jon_Hanson
Mountain Dew Rules
Premium
join:2001-07-09
Gilbert, AZ
| Re: SORBS got my buddy SORBS doesn't block anybody. Whoever is receiving his e-mail uses SORBS on their server to determine if they want to receive e-mail from various sources.
His contacting SORBS won't do anything. His ISP has to contact them to straighten this out. | |
| | 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by Suffering  :he should contact sorbs... they are the one blocking him... what is his ISP going to do? His ISP can't do jack. NONONONO!!!
NO!
SORBS is *NOT* blocking anything. The receivers ISP *IS* blocking. THEY are choosing to block any address listed in SORBS. SORBS is only a list. It does nothing by itself. In order for blocking to occur, the receieving mail server admin (IE: the ISP the mail was sent yo) needs to specifically set up their server to look in the sobrs list and block mail from servers listed there. | |
| | |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by sweintz :NONONONO!!! NO! SORBS is *NOT* blocking anything. The receivers ISP *IS* blocking. THEY are choosing to block any address listed in SORBS. SORBS is only a list. It does nothing by itself. In order for blocking to occur, the receieving mail server admin (IE: the ISP the mail was sent yo) needs to specifically set up their server to look in the sobrs list and block mail from servers listed there. I know what you are saying, but it's unfair for you to say 'it's all their fault, they followed sorbs' list!' sorbs doesn't make the list to do nothing but exist, they created it in order for people to use it to block mail. Blaming it all on the mail server admin doesn't solve the bigger problem that sorbs has him on their list and will blackmail him in order to have his IP removed.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy | |
| JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs: | I believe its his isp's mail server that is on the sorbs list. | |
|
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| ok, maybe I worded it wrong.
Sorbs has control over their list. If it's a dynamic IP they should change that.
Your buddy should tell that to sorbs so they change their list to show it's not a spammer IP but a dynamic IP address (which brings me to my problem with sorbs... if you are going to make a list of spammers IP addresses why would you include dynamic IP addresses? Why not work with the ISP's to find out if the IP address is static and if you determine it is static and the ISP's security dept will not turn that person off THEN block it? It's more work for sorbs, but it's a much more accurate tool.)
Or he could talk to whomever is blocking his mail (because they are using sorbs list).
Talking to sorbs would fix the issue.
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by Suffering :...(which brings me to my problem with sorbs... if you are going to make a list of spammers IP addresses why would you include dynamic IP addresses? Why not work with the ISP's to find out if the IP address is static and if you determine it is static and the ISP's security dept will not turn that person off THEN block it? It's more work for sorbs, but it's a much more accurate tool.) Or he could talk to whomever is blocking his mail (because they are using sorbs list). Talking to sorbs would fix the issue. Maybe, maybe not; fix the issue. SORBS does maintain a list of dynamic IP address space; as do other DNSBL maintainers. If the IP address in question is a dynamic IP address, only the ISP can request any changes, and only according to the SORBS criteria.
Accurate? Here is what is accurate. Better than 90% of the spam I get is sent through open proxies on compromised computers connecting via dynamic IP addresses. 0% of the good email I receive comes from dynamic IP addresses. Explain to me why I should not block email from dynamic IP address space? If you have a dynamic IP address, you also have an ISP SMTP server, in most cases. There are still a few email service providers which offer SMTP service at no charge.
The SORBS list works just fine for my MX; if it changes to match your criteria, I would stop using it. Indeed, if the DNSBLs were to suddenly disappear, I would run my own DNS and create my own blocking lists. I would not be alone.
--
Norman
~A deam, dream, no dream
~Voices of the night go across the forest
~A dream, dream, no dream
~Good night my good child | |
| |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by Suffering :ok, maybe I worded it wrong. Your buddy should tell that to sorbs so they change their list to show it's not a spammer IP Why? Given the complaints of fake rolex spam spewing from 209.165.130.11, i'd say it's accurate to list it as a spam source.
GCI needs to fix the problem by convincing SORBS it won't happen again. (the rolex spam, that is) | |
| | |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
1 edit | Re: SORBS got my buddy said by sweintz :Why? Given the complaints of fake rolex spam spewing from 209.165.130.11, i'd say it's accurate to list it as a spam source. GCI needs to fix the problem by convincing SORBS it won't happen again. (the rolex spam, that is) So you are telling me that:
1.) you know for a fact that this IP address has always belonged to this guy.
2.) mail headers can't be forged?
GCI owes sorbs nothing. If anything sorbs needs to contact the ISP's before blacklisting them in order to verify that spam is being sent out on that IP and the ISP isn't going to do anything about it. (btw, sorbs won't take the 'we fixed it' answer... they will make you give a 'donation')
I've said it before in this thread; sorbs has absolutely no authority to try to exert this pseudo control over ISP's IP addresses. They lead people to believe that their ISP can just drop them a line and all is well in the internet world when this is far from the truth.
Of course we are operating under the assumption that this guy didn't do the spamming and someone else did, but I would hope that would go without saying.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy | |
| | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by Suffering :said by sweintz :Why? Given the complaints of fake rolex spam spewing from 209.165.130.11, i'd say it's accurate to list it as a spam source. GCI needs to fix the problem by convincing SORBS it won't happen again. (the rolex spam, that is) So you are telling me that: 1.) you know for a fact that this IP address has always belonged to this guy. irrelevant. It isn't his address now. It is GCI's mail server. The address and ISP has a documented history of abuse.
said by Suffering :2.) mail headers can't be forged? Parts of headers can be forged, but not the final (top) received header, since that is created by the receiving mail server, not the sender. Therefore we know with 100% certainty that the spam was indeed coming from the address in question. | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Suffering :If anything sorbs needs to contact the ISP's before blacklisting them in order to verify that spam is being sent out on that IP and the ISP isn't going to do anything about it. (btw, sorbs won't take the 'we fixed it' answer... they will make you give a 'donation') I've said it before in this thread; sorbs has absolutely no authority to try to exert this pseudo control over ISP's IP addresses. They lead people to believe that their ISP can just drop them a line and all is well in the internet world when this is far from the truth. •SORBS is under no obligation to contact an ISP before they add an IP address to their list.
•SORBS has the authority to control connections to their own MX servers.
•SORBS can say what they will about an IP address, as long as they can back up their claims.
Any email administrator who would use any DNSBL has the obligation to understand the nature of the DNSBL before they use it; and, to stop using it if enough of their customers complain about it.
SORBS is out of line to request financial consideration, even if it is only a charitable donation; but SORBS can't force anybody to use their list.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT | Re: SORBS got my buddy well said, Norman.
Yeah, SORBS' charity donation thing is a bit much. but that's their own perogative.
Sorbs is just a list. period. they psuedocontrol nothing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: SORBS got my buddy They are not greedy; they get nothing out of the levy they try to impose. Unless they are getting a kickback from the favorite charity of the admin paying their levy.
As for improper blocking, you have said this:
quote:
So, sorbs has blocked several completely legitimate dynamic IP addresses and then wants the ISP to contact THEM in order to verify that it's a dynamic IP address.
Sorbs has no authority to make such requests to have the ISP's contact them..
What is so inaccurate about blocking dynamic IP addresses? 95% of all spam delivery attempts to my MX server, and 95% of all spam delivered to my ISP accounts comes from dynamic IP addresses. 0% of the email I want to receive is delivered through dynamic IP addresses. While I don't use SORBS, I do use NJABL and DSBL. I have drawn IP addresses listed by NJABL, or by DSBL; and I can't send end-to-end from my MTA to AOL MX servers. Period. Blocking dynamic IP addresses is just plain sensible pro-active protection of the MX server.
You also said:
quote:
SORBS has a nasty habit of blacklisting entire ranges of IP's from well-known ISP's.
Some well-known ISPs include MCI/UUNet and SBC. Guess who are No.1 and No.2 in the Spamhaus list of Rokso hosting ISPs?
Both of these facts, the volume of spam sourced from dynamic IP address space, and the number of hard-core spammers hosted by well-known ISPs, are indisputable; and sufficient to support SORBS' decisions on blocking.
The worst of their actions are trying to levy financial costs for delisting. Everything else is, well; SPEWS and SCBL are at least as aggressive as SORBS.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by NormanS :What is so inaccurate about blocking dynamic IP addresses? while I don't think people should run mail servers on dynamic IP addresses (isn't the point of PTR records to show some sort of accountability) there is no way that sorbs or any other DNSBL that can make a distinction between a dynamic address and static.
said by NormanS :Some well-known ISPs include MCI/UUNet and SBC. Guess who are No.1 and No.2 in the Spamhaus list of Rokso hosting ISPs? again, maybe I should rephrase. They blacklist entire ranges of IP's from ISP's who actively seek out spammers on their network.
In principle I don't disagree with much of how sorbs operates, it's their execution and the lack of action of 'admins' who use their DNSBL.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy | |
| | | | | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by Suffering :again, maybe I should rephrase. They blacklist entire ranges of IP's from ISP's who actively seek out spammers on their network. In principle I don't disagree with much of how sorbs operates, it's their execution and the lack of action of 'admins' who use their DNSBL. Hmmm... care to cite some examples? MCI and SBC, for instance, certainly do not actively seek out spammers. In fact they even ignore complaints when the spammers are pointed out to them. True of many large ISP's.
I think there is a big problem with public perception erroneously believing that the large major ISP's are the good guys in the spam war. Most of them are definitely "black hat", and the telco's are probably the worst. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
2 edits | Re: SORBS got my buddy said by sweintz :Hmmm... care to cite some examples? sure. This is how it works with Qwest DSL:
First off they proactively scan the network for people that are infected with viruses/spam zombies. If you are flagged then whenever your machine requests http traffic your browser is redirected to a walled garden environment that tells you that you have _____ on your system... clean it up. The end user can acknowledge that they have an issue on their PC and then continue browsing (meanwhile the ports that the infection uses are blocked).
if the abuse department receives one complaint that includes header information leading back to a qwest subscriber that is spamming on the network (or if the person ignores the walled garden for a extended period of time, I think a month...) their account is disabled and they are kicked offline. After learning that Qwest has disabled the account because of some vulnerability on their system they are allowed to get it fixed (all the while they are offline) and if they assure Qwest it's fixed (kind of an honor system thing) then the account is re enabled.
They use a 3 strikes you're out system. They'll disable you 3 times. if you say you've fixed it and haven't 3 times... then sorry, you can't have Qwest as an ISP any longer.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy | |
| | | | | | | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by Suffering :said by sweintz :Hmmm... care to cite some examples? sure. This is how it works with Qwest DSL: First off they proactively scan the network for people that are infected with viruses/spam zombies. If you are flagged then whenever your machine requests http traffic your browser is redirected to a walled garden environment that tells you that you have _____ on your system... clean it up. The end user can acknowledge that they have an issue on their PC and then continue browsing (meanwhile the ports that the infection uses are blocked). if the abuse department receives one complaint that includes header information leading back to a qwest subscriber that is spamming on the network (or if the person ignores the walled garden for a extended period of time, I think a month...) their account is disabled and they are kicked offline. After learning that Qwest has disabled the account because of some vulnerability on their system they are allowed to get it fixed (all the while they are offline) and if they assure Qwest it's fixed (kind of an honor system thing) then the account is re enabled. They use a 3 strikes you're out system. They'll disable you 3 times. if you say you've fixed it and haven't 3 times... then sorry, you can't have Qwest as an ISP any longer. Nice, but ...
For instance why do they continue to host the webfinity spammers, for two years running now, after numerous complaints?
Why do they continue to host Brian Kramer? Jeff Peter's? Why do they keep such notorious spammers as these on their network?
actively seek out spammers my @ss. They have had these pointed out to them. They do nothing about it. | |
|
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
1 edit | I see your point. That said, how can you say it's accurate when it is blocking legitimate email that isn't from a spammer.
Certainly the spam issue needs to be resolved but honestly I don't think sorbs way of doing it works long term.
For instance Grandma gets some nasty software installed on her computer and she's a spam zombie. She has a dynamic IP address. Her ISP warns her and asks her to remove it from her computer (even provides links on how to do so), meantime someone has reported her spam to sorbs. Grandma power cycles her modem, pulls another IP address... more spam more reports to sorbs. ISP gets reports as well, deactivates accnt... grandson comes over and uninstalls his Kazaa and says it's gone, ISP reactiaves accnt... IP address #3. More spam, more dynamic IP addresses blocked by sorbs until grandma is finally told she will need to find another ISP.
So, sorbs has blocked several completely legitimate dynamic IP addresses and then wants the ISP to contact THEM in order to verify that it's a dynamic IP address.
Sorbs has no authority to make such requests to have the ISP's contact them.. I understand the concept, but if they want it to truly be accurate THEY should setup communication with the ISP's. If the ISP is responsible and takes care of it then there ya go. If the ISP says that they like spammers, then sorps steps in... otherwise it seems like too rash of a decision.
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by Suffering :I see your point. That said, how can you say it's accurate when it is blocking legitimate email that isn't from a spammer. A list of dynamic IPs is not a list of spammers; it's just a list of dynamic IPs, and it's usually maintained separately from the list of actual spammers. Mailserver owners can choose to subscribe to whichever lists they like: they can figure out the cost/benefit ratios for their own tastes.
Generally speaking, people with dynamic IPs have a low ratio of legit to bogus mail servers, so it's not a bad plan at all to block. There is no way to block all the spam and keep all of the regular mail, so there is going to be some fallout. The guy who owns the mailserver gets to make that call, not grandma.Certainly the spam issue needs to be resolved but honestly I don't think sorbs way of doing it works long term. Then I guess you won't be installing it on your mailserver, now will you?So, sorbs has blocked several completely legitimate dynamic IP addresses and then wants the ISP to contact THEM in order to verify that it's a dynamic IP address. Grandma should be sending email through her ISP's mailserver; if she wants to run her own mailserver, get a static.
Sorry.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
| | |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| Re: SORBS got my buddy Steve I didn't say dynamic IP = spammer. I've had a dynamic IP with my dsl for nearly 5 years. Sorbs doesn't just block people running their own mail server... and sometimes people get infected with malware that sends out spam (I'm sure you know this, just saying), and sorbs will block ISP's dynamic IP's that people might have been pulling when they were a spam zombie... even ISP's who are quite vigilant about keeping spammers off their network.
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs: | It looks like sorbs wants a 50.00 ransom to be paid to a charity to remove the blacklist too. | |
| |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by JJV :It looks like sorbs wants a 50.00 ransom to be paid to a charity to remove the blacklist too. which is stupid and insane
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| 
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| The SORBs listing reports that spam was received from that server. It is apparently not listed as a dynamic block, but as a spam source.
I'm not sure exactly what is the SORBS policy here. If I blocked every site from which I received spam, I would be blocking most mail. Instead, I try to make allowances for mail coming from what appear to be ISP mail servers. I block those only if the amount of spam is excessive. I expect that ISP servers will send some unavoidable amount of spam, simply because they are relaying mail from their users, and may have some bad eggs among their users.
In this case the best JJV can do is complain to his ISP. It is up to the ISP to negotiate this with SORBS, or to decide to live with the problem. If the ISP can't fix it, then JJV will need to find another way of communicating with this correspondent.
The spammers and malware writers have broken the mail system. We live with it as best we can. But you have to live with the fact that people will take protective action against the continued bombardment of garbage. And sometimes that protective action will block good mail. If the ideal is unachievable, then you live with what seems to be a reasonable compromise. | |
| |
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by nwrickert :In this case the best JJV can do is complain to his ISP. It is up to the ISP to negotiate this with SORBS, or to decide to live with the problem. If the ISP can't fix it, then JJV will need to find another way of communicating with this correspondent. But not all ISP's will communicate with sorbs, nor are they required to. It is not the responsibility of the ISP to make sure sorbs is correct.
To me it's an insane policy.... like I'm going to start a mail server, but nobody can email me unless your ISP contacts ME and tells me you are ok!
--
Positive Affirmation Of Creative Destruction | |
| | |
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: SORBS got my buddy But not all ISP's will communicate with sorbs, nor are they required to. Well it seems I had some details wrong. It isn't JJV , but his friend in Alaska who is having problems sending email. The Alaskan friend can ask his ISP to contact SORBS. That ISP may decide not to, in which case the Alaskan friend has to find another way to communicate.
JJV can ask his provider to stop using the SORBS blocklist, or to whitelist the particular server. There is no guarantee that JJV 's provider will agree.
To me it's an insane policy
Which policy is insane?
90% of the smtp connections to my mail server are trying to send spam or viruses. To me, it seems insane not to do my best to block as much of the garbage as I can, while blocking as few non-spam messages as I can manage. But there is no perfect way of doing this.
I don't use the SORBS list myself, but I understand why some people do use it. | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Suffering :said by nwrickert :In this case the best JJV can do is complain to his ISP. It is up to the ISP to negotiate this with SORBS, or to decide to live with the problem. If the ISP can't fix it, then JJV will need to find another way of communicating with this correspondent. But not all ISP's will communicate with sorbs, nor are they required to. It is not the responsibility of the ISP to make sure sorbs is correct. To me it's an insane policy.... like I'm going to start a mail server, but nobody can email me unless your ISP contacts ME and tells me you are ok! You aren't blocked from receiving mail, only from sending it. My own dynamic IP addresses are more often blocked by NJABL than by SORBS. I do run a mail server, and no email to my MX is blocked unless it is from an IP address in one of about eight DNSBLs that I use. My own outbound email is blocked, usually because of my IP address being listed by NJABL. I get around that my using my ISP's SMTP server.
Mail server administrators make the decision to use a DNSBL, or not, according to their own needs. They decide which DNSBLs to use, if they do choose to use any at all. If you are blocked, you have some choices: Contact your ISP, contact the mail server administrator which is blocking you, contact the maintainer of the block list. The latter is iffy; if their policy requires that the controller of the listed IP address contact them, then you are out of luck. The former is equally iffy; your ISP may simply decide that the hoops required of the list maintainer are too much trouble to jump through. Your best hope is contacting the receiving mail server administrator; even so, if the list they use works for them then they likely won't stop using it.
Their is no law against publishing such a list; opinion is covered by freedom of speech guarantees, where such exist under law. Their is no law against using such a list; my server is my private property. Just as I can control access to my physical premises, so I can control access to my virtual premises. I actually tossed a kid from a store where I worked; legally! I do the same with SMTP clients trying to access my mail server.
Internet email sucks, really bad; but you have to live with the way it works.
--
Norman
~A deam, dream, no dream
~Voices of the night go across the forest
~A dream, dream, no dream
~Good night my good child | |
| 
mabus
Dissociated But Not Disconnected
join:2002-11-12
Fort Wayne, IN
| SORBS has a nasty habit of blacklisting entire ranges of IP's from well-known ISP's. CEO of my company was dialed in one time and sent an e-mail that was blocked because one of our ISP's had their ENTIRE RANGE of IP's blacklisted.
SORBS is a bit too overbearing at times when it comes to enforcement of their lists.
--
Mister Scruff makes my ears happy
STEREOLAB - THE GREATEST BAND ON EARTH | |
| | fantomposter
Phantom Poster
Premium
join:2002-09-21
Independence, OH
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by mabus :one of our ISP's had their ENTIRE RANGE of IP's blacklisted. Who was the ISP? | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by mabus :SORBS is a bit too overbearing at times when it comes to enforcement of their lists. If you don't like the way that SORBS operates, you don't have to use their list to check the source IP addresses of the SMTP clients connecting to your MX server.
--
Norman
~A deam, dream, no dream
~Voices of the night go across the forest
~A dream, dream, no dream
~Good night my good child | |
| GunnCat
join:2001-08-11
Torrington, CT | SORBS should be purged from the internet completely. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| 
Keith
Why Ask Than?
Premium
join:2002-10-28
Fort Erie, ON
| My sister (isp= Sympatico) e-mailed me (isp= Cogeco)
it bounced back to her Sympatico got listed on sorbs
she had no idea what to do, I e-mailed Sympatico's tech support explained and sent them the bounced e-mail
next morning e-mail back to normal
Any good provider will will act fast I know mine (Cogeco) dose and I was surprised how fast Sympatico acted on a complaint from a non Sympatico user
--
The only stupid question is the one not asked | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
| hyipo
join:2006-01-05
Mayodan, NC
| I run my own SMTP and promise people I will never spam, and I have closed smtp relays, No open proxies, My domain is the only allowed email address for sending email, and I use heavy passwords like over 20 digits to send email.
I never abuse, spam, and I hardly even send emails.
I got blacklisted for no reason. I tried to keep reseting my IP because I wanted my listing removed and my smtp is not open relay, but never got deblacklisted.
I am very angry at SORBS because not everyone can afford to pay $60/more a month for a static IP. They mostly ban the poor because they can't afford domain name email like me.
The reason I became my own SMTP is because I want my own domain email address, and I use individual emails per website and that would cost me $100's each month just to get my domain emails hosted.
SORBS can't ban me for being poor, and can't afford static ips. | |
| |
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | Re: SORBS got my buddy Don't blame SORBS. Blame the spammers.
It is the spammers who have forced people to not accept mail from dynamic IP ranges. You are probably in other blocklists beside SORBS. | |
| hyipo
join:2006-01-05
Mayodan, NC
2 edits | Still SORBS should never block dynamic IPS because theres always terrorism, and cracks in the wall of security even if we block the most innocent people from email. Spammers have many tools to hurt people like Fake Emailing, spamming hosted emails and keep sending emails as spam, going for the most weak servers, and even send spam server viruses. SORBS should stop this because there is always ways to spam someone and hurting the people that can't afford static IPs should not pay for terrorism.
There will always be a way to break from a cage and caging the innocent (SORBS has mastered) is gonna make things worse and make them angry.
the bad thing is if someone where to send fake emails under the biggest corporations name then they will have to keep paying $50.00 and SORBS could cause new methods of revenge. Just report someone and they have to pay. | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: SORBS got my buddy said by hyipo :Still SORBS should never block dynamic IPS... SORBS doesn't blocking sending from dynamic IP address. Do, please, remember; no DNSBL can block the sending of email. They can be used to block receipt of email, if the administrator of the receiving email system so desires.
I don't use SORBS, but I do use NJABL and DSBL to block mail hosts on dynamic IP addresses from delivering email my MX server. If you want to deliver email to my MX server, use a mail host with a fixed IP address.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| I work with SORBS on a regular basis and have for over 3 years. We have a good relationship with SORBS however we have also had our SMTP server listed on SORBS a few times and each time it was a warranted listing due to errors, miscommunication or unforeseen consequences on our end. I am regularly and often called on to justify, investigate and defend SORBS listings, to date I have only seen one error and SORBS immediately responded, resolved and apologized. Here's my feedback on SORBS, SORBS policy and the propaganda floating around (and likely initiated by the spam community) about SORBS,
1.)We voluntarily list our dynamic netblocks with SORBS as no dynamic IP should be sending mail. To be clear, we provide SORBS the netblocks for blacklisting and in the event we need this list modifying or a block removed we simply contact SORBS and ask for it to be removed and it is done within 24 hours and there is no donation necessary.
2.)There is NO payment to SORBS. SORBS asks that a $50 donation be made to a charity, they list a few charities on their site but you can donate to any charity you like and simply provide proof of donation to SORBS. For example last time we were listed we donated to the Earthquake Relief Fund. Again, SORBS makes no money from the $50 delist donation. The donation is a way to raise awareness to the issue and I can tell you firsthand that the policy works. Once a payment is necessary some level of management must be involved to approve and clueful management will inquire why it is necessary and I have firsthand seen this awareness change the spam policies in organizations...most recently I have seen this happen with Hotmail (yes, really!). Because of the $50 donation senior Hotmail management is now involved and are working proactively with SORBS and other aspects of the anti-spam community.
3.)Yes, SORBS is a particularly militant RBL and probably the most militant of the widely used and popular RBLS but this is simply because all other such RBL providers have been run off the internet by the spam community. By and large RBL providers are non-profit organizations run by volunteers so continuous DDoS attacks and legal threats from the spam community have unfortunately forced most of these providers off the net.
4.)It really sucks that it is necessary to blacklist entire netblocks in order to get providers attention but that is the case in these days were approx 80% of email sent is spam. Don't blame SORBS, blame those negligent providers that either willing ignore reports and/or don't support their security depts (or don't have a security dept) enough for them to handle these reports.
5.)I'm absolutely in awe of the logic of some providers *cough*Yahoo Groups*cough* *cough*Wannadoo*cough* that prefer to spend oodles of money on processing bounces and customer support staff to answer support questions instead of simply working with SORBS, possibly having to pay a measly $50 donation and making their customers happy...I just don't get it. And as for the claims of SORBS demanding $100s and/or $1000s of dollars for delists....if you have firsthand proof of this (aka: not something you heard from a friend of a friend of an online friend that was told this by a 1st tier rep at ISP X) IM me with the details and I'll follow up with SORBS as this is simply not the case.
6.)SORBS runs the list but they neither control nor force anyone to query their list. We query SORBS list to reduce spam but if ISP X's IP is listed on SORBS I have no ability to remove them from SORBS, only ISP X can work with SORBS to get removed. I'm always willing to help other admins (although it shouldn't be necessary) and we've even temporarily whitelisted providers once they prove they're working to resolve the matter with SORBS and they provide us 24/7 contact information - for example with Hotmail it's understandable that such a large organization will need time to figure it all out with SORBS and once we got contact with real live Hotmail people and they committed to working with SORBS we reacted and worked with them for the sake of our combined customers...providers that simply regurgitate the propaganda and bounce their customers around should be pressured by their customers to resolve the situation instead of shifting the blame.
I'm responsible for a network with over 250,000 high-speed hosts and somehow I'm able to keep SORBS from listing our network often, how do I do it you ask? Here's my quick and simple guide....
-have a working security dept that actions abuse reports
-management that understand the importance and value of an effective security dept and supports them
-react to RBL listings and work with the provider to get delisted
-(this one is a tricky one) READ THE SORBS WEBPAGE FOR DELIST INSTRUCTIONS AND FOLLOW THEM - crazy concept I know but it does work! Everytime we've been listed I've gotten us delisted in under 24 hours following this one simple rule
That last point is the most important, SORBS has alot of information on their site and if people would simply sit down and read it and try to understand it instead of buying into the propaganda being spread by the spam community we'd all reap the benefits plus poor customers wouldn't be bounced around by support departments.
Place the blame where it should lay, with the admins of netblocks that are spewing spam.
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper | |
| | vaisg
join:2005-09-11
1 edit | Re: SORBS got my buddy Good response. People running blacklist are the most misunderstood people. For running it to help mail admins control their spam level, they get all the blame.
We use the blacklist voluntarily, no one force us to use it. Many are willing to risk the blocking a small amount of legit mails than to have the floodgate open for spam.
We prefer not to have tens and hundreds of infected machines hitting on our mail server trying to get spam across. We prefer not to have our users having to delete so much junk just to view their emails. These same bunch of criminals also send out ebay and paypal phishing, the sell pirated sw.
Blacklist seems most effective or we'll have to block half the world. | |
| 
ananymous
@tartergate.com
| The people at Sorbs are a bunch of emotional idiots. They block people just because they complain to them. Perfectly legit servers get blocked by them, and if you raise hell with them when they want to extort cash from you to get unblocked, they'll you again.
No one should use that organization and they should be sewed. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
·