Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Hi! To jump into the NetManager debate: > If a company/ISP is registered with us for NetManager, and have chosen > to receive reports, they get emails upon listing and by default they > will have access to additional (but heavily munged) information that any > good sysadmin should be able to u

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Vick Khera wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote: Therefore, I'm not even going to discuss the issue of 'problem solved within minutes' issue at this point as you will note the above covers where this is likely to be

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

I don't think that this is the best attitude for helping the email ecosystem (and I suppose this is what we all want to accomplish). I don't want to take anyone's side either because in the past I used to complain about some blacklists as well and I perfectly understand where we're coming from. But

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > I realize that doesn't fit with your narrative that DNSBL operators > care about nothing but punishing senders, but it is nonetheless true. > No, I was specific about SORBS, not all DNSBLs. ___ mail

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Vick Khera wrote: >> > That makes sense if you get no response from the affected sender. However, > if they are able to show you how the problem was fixed then what's the > purpose? Especially when you already have reputation data for that sender > over long time pe

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:14:41PM -0500, Rob McEwen wrote: > If every IPv4 blacklist provider (including spamhaus) closed down tomorrow, > and every internally-run IPv4 blacklist stopped working... and the world's > spam filters then had to rely on ALL... OTHER... means/technologies for > blocking

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Therefore, I'm not even going to discuss the issue of 'problem solved >> within minutes' issue at this point as you will note the above covers where >> this is likely to be true, as apposed to those (who we get on a regular >> basis) who

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > People go away, businesses shutdown over weekends etc, so you need time > for them to find out they have a problem and resolve it. > > That makes sense if you get no response from the affected sender. However, if they are able to show you how t

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Receivers rely on RBLs to help prevent unwanted mail from getting through to recipients. There is (or should be) some understanding that utilizing an RBL will result in bad mail being blocked, and good mail not being blocked. In this respect, SORBS is pretty good. Plenty of false positives (by that

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017, at 17:53, Jay Hennigan wrote: > Having a bad credit score is 100% of your problem if you can't get a > loan, and 99% of the time your bad credit score isn't the fault of the > credit bureau. You earned that bad credit score (or RBL listing). This is a good analogy though, as

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 1/8/17 5:11 PM, David Sgro, Dataspindle wrote: I have always hated the argument that "RBL's don’t block email". Haters gotta hate. :-) Happens to be true, though. While technically its true, you being listed in the RBL is 100% the cause of your problem and it is not the ISP/receiving serv

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

o turn it on, but that’s not practical. -Original Message- From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 8:03 PM To: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] SORBS help On 1/8/17 4:04 PM, Large Hadron Collider wrote: > obvio

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 1/8/17 4:04 PM, Large Hadron Collider wrote: obviously. They have the right to refuse mail, but in the case of SORBS' overblocking, they probably don't intend to. SORBS blocks nothing and refuses no mail. Receiving ISPs do those things. If the ISP chooses to use SORBS as a filter, then by d

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

obviously. They have the right to refuse mail, but in the case of SORBS' overblocking, they probably don't intend to. On 2017-01-07 10:33 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote: On 2017-01-07 01:05 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: Moreover, Federal law *specifically* grants that right to ISPs (refusing anybo

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Michelle wrote: > Ok first I'm going to apologise to Bryan for being abrasive my nature is to > be suspicious of anyone who publicly criticizes SORBS whilst hiding the > cause/listing details and making claims of legitimacy. I thank those who > took part in the thread that gave support directl

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

To All but to Bryan specifically as well... Michelle Sullivan wrote: Jaren Angerbauer wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote: Perhaps you'd like to backup the assertion that "It did not look like spam and was sent to a small group

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Jaren Angerbauer wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote: Perhaps you'd like to backup the assertion that "It did not look like spam and was sent to a small group of email addresses." with the actual IP address so I can verify or

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Perhaps you'd like to backup the assertion that "It did not look like spam > and was sent to a small group of email addresses." with the actual IP > address so I can verify or deny your assertion. Bryan sent me the IP address privately.

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Bryan Vest wrote: 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

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 1/3/17 5:13 PM, Bryan Vest wrote: We have been blocked for 48 hours by SORBS for an email that was in no way spam.It did not look like spam Spammers of course try to make their spam "not look like spam". and was sent to a small group of email addresses. Perhaps one or more of those addre

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Michelle Sullivan wrote: Vick Khera wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote: So taking your blatant attack literally which I was under the impression was against list policy, lets instead attempt to be constructive and have a cla

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: On Jan 7, 2017, at 11:33 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote: On 2017-01-07 01:05 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: Moreover, Federal law *specifically* grants that right to ISPs (refusing anybody's email for any, and indeed for no, reason). Where is this country called "Fede

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 2017-01-07 01:05 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: Moreover, Federal law *specifically* grants that right to ISPs (refusing anybody's email for any, and indeed for no, reason). Where is this country called "Federal"? More than 95% of the world does *NOT* live in the United States. -- D'Ar

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 11:33 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote: > > On 2017-01-07 01:05 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: >> Moreover, Federal law *specifically* grants that right to ISPs (refusing >> anybody's email for any, and indeed for no, reason). > > Where is this country called "Federal"? > > More

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

>> It's always good to keep in mind that having your mail accepted somewhere >> is a privilege, not a right, and that recipient systems are free to >> cease extending that privilege in whole or in part at any time with or >> without notice and with or without reason. Moreover, Federal law *speci

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Noel, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish I could send you through an alternate reality where zen.spamhaus.org was completely down for just 1 whole day (not merely not updating - but completely down, including satellite servers). I'm convinced that you'd admit the next day that you

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 07/01/2017 14:36, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/6/2017 8:49 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >> Reject HELO/EHLO 1.41% >> Reject unknown user 8.45% >> Reject sender address11.27% >> Reject unknown client host 48.03% >> Reject RBL

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 1/6/2017 8:49 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Reject HELO/EHLO 1.41% Reject unknown user 8.45% Reject sender address11.27% Reject unknown client host 48.03% Reject RBL8.31% Reject milt

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 07/01/2017 00:00, Vick Khera wrote: > So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a > minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within > minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive. Because in 99.9r% of the time, the problem is NOT solv

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 07/01/2017 02:09, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > It's always good to keep in mind that having your mail accepted somewhere > is a privilege, not a right, and that recipient systems are free to > cease extending that privilege in whole or in part at any time with or > without notice and with or without

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 06/01/2017 14:14, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 1/5/2017 8:21 PM, John Leslie wrote: > >> because the IP >> blocklist model is hopelessly doomed _when_ IPv6 email becomes common > > If every IPv4 blacklist provider (including spamhaus) closed down tomorrow, > and every internally-run IPv4 blacklis

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 17-01-05 05:21 PM, John Leslie wrote: 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_ a

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Vick Khera wrote: >> >> >> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a >> minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within >> minutes? That's just punitive

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 08:49:47AM -0500, Vick Khera wrote: > SORBS does not seem interested in > solving problems, but in punishing people. It is impossible for SORBS (or any other DNSBL/RHSBL) to punish anyone. Even if they wanted to -- and I see no evidence that they do -- they can't. The same

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Vick Khera wrote: > > > So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a > minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within > minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive. Because the proof of the pudding is in th

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

> So if you're goal is to solve problems, then what's the point of having a > minimum 48 hour block when the problem is solved at the origin within > minutes? That's just punitive and not constructive. a) When you run an RBL, the bulk of so called abuse departments reply that the problem is solved

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Vick Khera wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Michelle Sullivan > wrote: So taking your blatant attack literally which I was under the impression was against list policy, lets instead attempt to be constructive and have a clam discussion... "SORBS do

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > So taking your blatant attack literally which I was under the impression > was against list policy, lets instead attempt to be constructive and have a > clam discussion... "SORBS does not seem interested in solving problems, > but in pun

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On 1/5/2017 8:21 PM, John Leslie wrote: because the IP blocklist model is hopelessly doomed _when_ IPv6 email becomes common If every IPv4 blacklist provider (including spamhaus) closed down tomorrow, and every internally-run IPv4 blacklist stopped working... and the world's spam filters then

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

John Leslie wrote: Michelle Sullivan wrote: ... On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Bryan Vest mailto:murli...@gmail.com>> 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) ] ]

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>... >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Bryan Vest > > 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 hav

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Vick Khera wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Bryan Vest > 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. How much trouble is it causing you? I find it doesn't cause all that

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Responded offline. Thanks, --Jaren On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Bryan Vest wrote: > 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

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

Getting blacklisted too easily by Sorbs et al. was one of the reasons why I built a custom MTA instead of using Postfix to deliver mail. We have lots of accounts to serve and from time to time someone gets hacked and their account credentials are used to send spam. We try to catch outbound spam

Re: [mailop] SORBS help

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Bryan Vest 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. > How much trouble is it causing you? I find it doesn't cause all that much trouble in terms of mail being blocked. SORBS d

[mailop] SORBS help

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