SORBS on autopilot?
matthew at sorbs.net
Fri Jan 15 16:49:09 UTC 2010
Ken Chase wrote:
> Fair enough, but it wasnt just me.
> I have the customer who submitted his own tickets as well, as well as NAC.net
> who has admins (an email admin, actually), who seems to know his way around RBLs
> and the current state/reputation/happenings in the spam/RBL/mail world.
> Customer has posted these tickets:
> 260573, 260695, 261026, 261204, 261325, 261377, 261624
260573 - waiting for a response from a SORBS admin (originally requested the /22, but really only meant to request a /32)
260695 - is 260573
261026 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host)
261204 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host)
261325 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host)
261377 - had no information about any ticket and was logged to the lowest priority queue, and is actually the same as the above from the same requestor.
261624 - waiting for response from the requestor (and 260573, 260695, 261026, 261204, 261325, 261377 are all merged into it as then are all for the same host.)
> and the last ticket I posted was from NAC's admin, who received and acted on replies
The NAC admin had not replied to the ticket as I stated previously.
> That makes 3 semi-clued people who found your system somewhat confusing (+1
> interested party @coplanar = 4). The ironic thing is that if you make it
> any clearer, spammers may also figure out how to clear their networks easily
> as well from your list. :/ So I can see the reason for not doing so to some
Well 3 people have ignored the last 2 sentences... so please tell me
what is unclear in them? The only correct response was in 260573 when
someone responded to the robot response. For the onlookers, please note
that the SORBS stated reply time has been complied with in all cases,
and had the other tickets not been logged for the same issue by the same
requestor it would have been answered by today to stay in that response
More information about the NANOG