Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by federal law.
matthew at sorbs.net
Fri Mar 16 22:35:00 UTC 2007
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote (on Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:31:44PM -0400):
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, S. Ryan wrote:
>>> Personally, we gave up using SORBS because of it's very high
>>> false-positive ratio
>> YMMV; at $DAYJOB we don't seem to have the same problem.
> I gave up using SORBS (and I'm not Mat's enemy, mind you - I used to
> work for SORBS and still like the idea) because it was so random.
> Mat would block 2, say, out of AOL's 26 or whatever mailservers.
> Why? b/c those two were used to send spam. Right. So, not only do
> I have to explain to users why their AOL friends cannot write them,
> I *also* have to explain that the blocking is at random, and if
> their friend just retrys sending, they'll have a 92% chance of
> getting through. Completely unworkable. If you want to block AOL
> (and I totally sympathize with Mat here) just ... block ...
> them and be done with it. Don't make me play email roulette.
This is a problem, and with the advent of the latest bots using ISPs
MTAs etc I am more than happy to talk to people and listen to
constructive suggestions from ISPs (such as those on this list) about
how to resolve the issue. I am even happy to receive constructive
suggestions and to discuss changes to SORBS general policies (though
would have to be another forum) if anyone here would like to do
that.... The spammers have changed, SORBS needs to, I don't have the
More information about the NANOG