Question for the List Maintaners -- (Re: SORBS Contact)

Thu Aug 10 05:19:28 UTC 2006

Matthew Sullivan wrote:

> If you checked with the original complainant you would find that both
> the zombie and DUHL listings are cleared.  If you knew the ticket
> numbers and where they sit in the SORBS RT Support system you would know
> that there were multiple tickets logged the oldest now being 10 days,
> the most recent being 5 days - and under published policy the earliest
> was pushed into the more recent.  You'll also note that the original
> complaint was about a single IP address as part of a /27 within a /19
> listing.

OK. I have no problem with that. I want you to understand that my observation
comes from seeing *many* people complain about a lack of response. If it was
just a couple, that'd be a horse of another color.

And frankly, it's not like you try to hide. You're a public figure here and
on several other discussion forums. So I don't think it's unreasonable to
assume that if people are having trouble reaching SORBS, it's not because the
contacts aren't published. In fact, I've seen a number of complaints that
people *have* contacted SORBS and have failed to get a response.

> The quoted text above is intended for a few that might still be on this
> list, non of which posted to this thread.  The fact remains some ISPs
> provide transit to known criminal organisations for hijacked netblocks
> which are used for nothing but abuse (hosting trojans and viruses). 

I'm not arguing that fact. Whether or not it was an appropriate response is
another matter.

>> I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any
>> better by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some
>> cases, never were.
>>   
> Where do you get that from...?  We fix incorrect listings as soon as
> notified and with no deliberate delay.  If you are refering to listings
> like Dean Anderson's stolen netblock these are not delisted until such
> time as proof is obtained that our information is incorrect.

Perhaps "refusal" is not the proper word, and I apologize for using it. It
does imply intent. "failure" may be a more accurate description.

> permission even from a company folding is still stealing) - his response
> was a lot of bluster followed by the creation of the IADL.org site. 

Yup, I know. I'm there too. I am one of Dean's most vocal detractors.

> Something to consider before replying: is this on or off topic for
> NANOG? (personally I think part of this is on topic, other parts of the
> thread are definitely off topic)

It has been agreed that spam is offtopic, although the issue of hijacked
netblocks certainly isn't. So I probably should have replied to you off-list
(apologies to everyone else for lowering the S:N ratio).

I don't know what the official word is on whether DNSBL operations in general
are on-topic for this list. I would appreciate if the people in charge of
deciding such things could tell me whether DNSBLs are on-topic or not...

-- 
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California     PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.