SORBS contact?

Tue Mar 22 22:58:46 UTC 2011

On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> +1
>
> They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.

I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad 
thing.  They might do better by rebranding though.  SORBS has one heck 
of an amount of negative karma for them to get past.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Atkins"<steve at blighty.com>
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2011 9:56:20 AM
> Subject: Re: SORBS contact?
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes
>>>> after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was
>>>> finally removed a short while later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>> Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?!
>>> Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes!
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
>>
>> Yeah +1 to that. What we need an RBL that lists any mail server that USES sorbs for filtering decisions.
> Cut GFI a little slack, at least for a few more weeks.
>
> They seem to have made some decent decisions w.r.t. SORBS very recently and it's likely that things will be improving, at least as far as SORBS policies and support responsiveness are concerned.
>
> They may yet screw it up, but give them a chance to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
>   Steve
>
>