Don,
We were recently listed as well. I sent it the ticket like you did and it took
almost a week to get a response. I submitted a fairly good explanation and
they did de-list me but it did take a while.
Justin
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com
It may have been down when you looked, Andy. It's up now.
Also, I like to use this 3rd party for an instant second opinion:
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com
Andrew 8)
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Thanks Andrew - it was down for a long time - but now I can get it. Thanks
for reassuring me.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website
and the time and date of the error.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website Down?
It may have been down when you looked, Andy. It's
Anymore??? When were they trusted?
People that run a blacklist without a financial incentive generally are
agressive individuals that have lost their will for tollerance, and
don't want to be bothered by things like false positives. Those with
easy to maintain systems (primarily automated
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Thanks I just want to be clear that SORBS is different to ORDB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William
Increase from a lot of FP's to exactly how many more?
:)
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Any increase on False Positives with SORBS being experienced ?
David Barker
VP Operations Declude
Your Email security is our business
978.499.2933 x 7007 office
978.988.1311 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
11:08 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Increase from a lot of FP's to exactly how many more?
:)
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Any increase on False Positives with SORBS being experienced ?
David Barker
VP Operations Declude
Your Email security is our
We are getting A LOT
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:13 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Was working with a customer who was claiming
. 727.724.2610
fx. 727.724.2680
cl. 727.638.6208
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick
Baranowski
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:02 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
We are getting A LOT
Rick
Thanks I just want to be clear that SORBS is different to ORDB
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William
Stillwell
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:35 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Orbs
I've got about 2 1/2 days of SORBS stats done, checking all but
SORBS-BLOCK (because I don't believe the methodology relates to spam).
The results are very telling.
SORBS
---
4377 - Unique Incoming Messages
1350 - Test Hits (30.8% of unique messages, multiple
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote:
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
came up...
Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully
If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get
blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This
zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
service
Cox cable I'll bet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Harvy
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else
that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.
Thanks
Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything
just use a weighted system where each test
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a system
because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would think that
most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of
firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't rely on open
relays in
Keith wrote:
Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else
that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.
Here's mine. Weights 0-12 are OK, weights 13-19 get bounced and 20+
gets deleted. Neither bounces nor deletes
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on
a system
because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would
://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS
Absolutely agreed.
pbh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Don't get me wrong, I will use .6
and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
alternative,
Whets using SBC as a provider got to do with ethics?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Phillip B. Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Two words: pink contracts
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd
- Smart Mail
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
Phillip wrote:
Two words: pink contracts
9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about?
I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book,
but that was incompetent tech installation and support. Once the
service is up its always been just great; for years running.
And
and destroy all copies of the original message.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Phillip wrote:
Two words: pink
Keith wrote:
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
came up...
Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully the 2001 date on that post is
indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise they're pretty much *all*
in league with the devil.
-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote:
I plugged
Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8
pbh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Smart Business Lists
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Careful on SORBS-SPAM -
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business
Lists
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for
http://www.cox.com/
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Glen Harvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
So far, only 1 that cause a message to be held. On the other hand, I find
considerable overlap with some of the other big name tests, so I'm catching
more spam than I did, while also making the stuff I caught before score even
higher.
That is why I stopped using the DUL list; it's a list of
31 matches
Mail list logo
