Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| reply to NormanS
Re: SORBS got my buddy
I think you are misunderstanding my objections to sorbs. I like the fact that they are trying to block spam, however I disagree with some of their concepts.
Yes, block mail from servers that are open relays.
Block mail from known IP address that are leased by spammers.
However it's not fair if I lease a static IP address from my ISP to monetarily punish me if the person who was leasing it before me was sending spam (and quite possibly had their internet connection terminated because they were spamming).
It's not fair to punish email service providers by blocking entire mail servers when a small minority of their users are spamming (and any reputable ISP or email provider like gmail has in place steps to combat spam from coming from their network)
The only problems I've ever had with sorbs is from my work. Here's how it goes: customer calls in because sorbs is blocking them - they don't want to pay the $50 to get their IP unblocked (nor should they have to) so they call their ISP to have us unblock it. We explain that we have no control over sorbs database and issue them a different static IP address.
Sorbs has built a system of punishment to get off their list. anyone who is willing to spend $50 to get unblocked are more than likely not the responsible party for being black listed in the first place.
sorbs is trying to be the internet spam police and they need to examine some of their policies.
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Suffering  :sorbs is trying to be the internet spam police and they need to examine some of their policies. Maybe they should, maybe they have, and decided to leave it. The way it is.
They are within their rights to publish such information as they publish.
Maybe those who use it should examine their policies.
You are caught in the cross-fire. Maybe there should be a law; but what kind of a law? Until we can sort that out, this is the way it is on the Internet.
--
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: | yeah I agree with that.
I guess my main point is that there are many alternatives to sorbs and people should explore them.
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Quite. FWIW, I don't use SORBS, myself. But, unless they are breaking some law, and I am sure that they have run this by an attorney familiar with the applicable laws where the SORBS servers are located, all that anybody can do is lobby against administrators using 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:
| I doubt there could be any legal recourse as they based in Australia.
domain: SORBS.NET
owner-name: Sullivan, Matthew
owner-address: PO Box 5150
owner-address: 6217
owner-address: Bruce
owner-address: Australia Capital
owner-address: Australia
owner-phone: +61.262015928
owner-e-mail: dns@isux.com
admin-c: MS1367-GANDI
tech-c: MS1367-GANDI
bill-c: MS1367-GANDI
nserver: ns0.sorbs.net 203.15.51.35
nserver: ns4.sorbs.net 216.168.31.53
nserver: ns2.sorbs.net 194.134.64.71
reg_created: 2002-01-25 03:27:24
expires: 2009-01-25 03:27:24
created: 2002-12-10 19:57:09
changed: 2005-11-04 00:19:35
person: Matthew Sullivan
nic-hdl: MS1367-GANDI
address: SORBS
address: PO Box 5150
address: 6217
address: Canberra
address: Australia Capital
address: Australia
phone: +61.414861744
e-mail: dns@isux.com
lastupdated: 2005-06-21 00:30:05
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | I expect that anybody with standing for legal action in Australia would have tried something, by now...
--
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:
| I remember someone saying something (really specific I know) about Australia having fairly loose laws in relation to the internet so they are somewhat immune to prosecution.
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Suffering
However it's not fair if I lease a static IP address from my ISP to monetarily punish me if the person who was leasing it before me was sending spam (and quite possibly had their internet connection terminated because they were spamming). In this case, it would seem that your ISP has provided you damaged goods. You should complain to your ISP. |
|
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| said by nwrickert :In this case, it would seem that your ISP has provided you damaged goods. You should complain to your ISP. How did the isp provide damaged goods? They have zero control over what sorbs says. It is not the ISP's responsibility to keep sorbs up to date, nor is it the ISP's responsibility to pay sorbs' bribe money to whitelist your IP address.
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | They provided you an IP address that was not usable for what you wanted to do. That sounds damaged to me. |
|
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
1 edit | it's a usable ip address. sorbs is blocking it? talk to them. There are NO ISP's that have any control over sorbs. Shoot, they don't even have any authority to do what they are doing. They aren't sponsored by ICANN or any other group that has any say what so ever.
That's like saying 'I'm trying to get to dslreports.com but their webserver is blocking IP addresses from the 71.x.x.x range.' SO WHAT? What is your ISP going to do? force dslr to accept your IP address? No you talk to dslr.
It's not your ISP's fault, so where does the blame lie? With whomever has control but refuses to do something. that rests squarely on the shoulders of sorbs.
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Suffering :It's not your ISP's fault, so where does the blame lie? With whomever has control but refuses to do something. that rests squarely on the shoulders of sorbs. Actually, responsibility rests squarely on the entity blocking the IP address; SORBS is listing it, but the administrator using the list is doing the blocking, not SORBS. |
|
Suffering
Retrovertigo
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-06
127.0.0.1
clubs:
| nonetheless sorbs is listing it and you shouldn't have to pay to have something fixed that you didn't break.
Sorbs has proved they blacklist things without through examination (qwest and gmail mail servers) and to get it off the list is the equivalent of extortion.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
2 edits | Extortion is illegal in Australia; file a criminal complaint.
From their web site it appears that they break down the listing into assorted reasons. For any legal action to be taken, a plaintiff would have to prove that the listing was incorrect, based on the reason given for the listing.
If they are expecting Qwest to pay, then the reason must be covered by the "Spam Database" part of their listing. All they would need to do is show the court a copy of the spam, with intact headers, as evidence. If any spam went through the Qwest mail server, then the listing would be accurate.
Unless you can prove inaccuracy, there isn't much you can do WRT to libel. Unless you can prove elements of extortion, there isn't much you can do WRT a criminal complaint. I am sure that they have covered their bases, WRT to the Australian legal system, very well.
The only real recourse is to convince administrators using SORBS that there is a real problem of excess aggressiveness to that particular DNSBL, or that the de-listing process is based on a flawed, or unethical model; for which reasons they should drop SORBS.
I have tested my MTA with, and without SORBS; I can't see that they make any difference, either way, on my MTA. But I prefer less aggressive lists; I don't block based on the über aggressive lists, such as SPEWS, SCBL, and Blars.
Edit: Modified to conform with author's understanding of information posted at this site:
»www.nl.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
--
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:
| thank you NormanS , that sounds familiar. I don't think there really is any legal recourse for qwest or gmail.
However both could do some creative blocking on their own to *convince* sorbs to see the errors of their way and I'm sure it wouldn't be legal either.
I guess in the long run sys admins just need to see stuff like this in order for them to stop using sorbs to block spam. Does it block spam? absolutely. Does it block legitimate mail? absolutely.
--
kicking screaming gucci little piggy |
|
hyipo
join:2006-01-05
Mayodan, NC
| reply to JJV
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 | 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 | reply to JJV
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
| 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 |
|
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| reply to Suffering
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. |
|
