Michelle Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: >>... >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Bryan Vest <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> If someone from SORBS could contact me off list or on list I don't >> care, either way we need to get this block removed. >>...
(restoring from Bryan's post) ] ] We have been blocked for 48 hours by SORBS for an email that was in no way ] spam. It did not look like spam and was sent to a small group of email ] addresses. The ip address in question only has this one entry in their ] system and of course no replies to request for answer as to why we have to ] wait 48 hours even though this was not spam nor as to what triggered it as ] spam. > There are players in the market who believe they are too big to block >... >... lets instead attempt to be constructive and have a calm discussion... A discussion is IMHO _very_ apprpriate -- largely because the IP blocklist model is hopelessly doomed _when_ IPv6 email becomes common. > what would *YOU* suggest we do instead, and what do *YOU* perceive as > "not interested in solving problems" Obviously, that's in the eye of the beholder... But let me opine that one truly interested in "solving problems" would find a way to make information on what triggered the listing widely available to "trustworthy" parties, and would find a way to let "trustworthy" parties report resolution of the problem. (I actually wrote an I-D on that subject a number of years ago.) Fundamentally, we have to agree that an _actual_ spammer cannot be considered a "trustworthy" party. Thus, blocklist operators are, to a first approximation, unlikely to publish to the whole world what it is that led to any particular listing. :^( But the fact remains that many "spam runs" originate from mostly honest customers whose computer has been compromised. This will only be cured when the owner has been notified, and has come to believe it's worth the effort to remove the compromise. How to get that information back to the responsible party, as of today, remains unsolved. But to the casual observer, blocklist operators don't seem to be trying at all. They don't notify the blocklisted server at all, in most cases, and if there _is_ any way to retrieve information about why the listing happened, it's proprietary. > and what do *YOU* perceive as "punishment"... Actually, any blocklisting without the least attempt to report why the listing happened _looks_like_ "punishment" -- even when the "punishment" is extremely unlikely to change the misbehavior. > and I will answer why we can/cannot implement such policies/changes... Why you _currently_ can't implement them isn't terribly helpful. Instead, could you try to say what you would need in order to implement them? -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
