sorbs.net

Tue Mar 15 18:53:22 UTC 2005

Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs 
at some level.  Do you really think opinion has a place in mail 
delivery?  What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was 
suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?

/m

Robert Bonomi wrote:

>>From owner-nanog at merit.edu  Tue Mar 15 11:59:40 2005
>>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:21 -0800
>>From: Micah McNelly <micah at style.net>
>>To: nanog at merit.edu
>>Subject: sorbs.net
>>
>>
>>Nanog,
>>
>>Anyone on the list involved with this project?  I need to speak to 
>>someone ASAP.  No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
>>
> 
> 
> SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
> 
> I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators
> group.
> 
> SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion.
> if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS
> listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request
> that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you.
> *THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their
> system.
> 
> Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site.  it works reliably. 
> Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to 
> urgency on the part of anyone else.
> 
> Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable
>       contribution.  All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS
>       system, eventually.
> 
> 
> Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist,
> for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_
> requirements).  I don't even know the operator thereof.   Everything I've
> said is based on published and publicly available information.

-- 
/m

"I bet the human brain is a kludge."  - Marvin Minsky