Sorbs is a pretty good list. And I've been on the listed-side too. I personally
would not use it to block, but I would give it 3 of the 5 points.
The anti-spam gang is never going to be perfect. But since (self)regulation is
not working, we need them. I value them at the moment. The only
I tend to scratch my head at anyone still using SORBS at this point.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 8:27 AM Ken O'Driscoll
wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 20:15 -0800, Large Hadron Collider wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have information on why this is, and if you represent SORBS
>
&
On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 20:15 -0800, Large Hadron Collider wrote:
> Does anyone have information on why this is, and if you represent SORBS
> and/or GMX and/or both, would you please trouble yourself with
> contacting me off-list?
You can find out why an IP was listed via their lookup
Does anyone have information on why this is, and if you represent SORBS
and/or GMX and/or both, would you please trouble yourself with
contacting me off-list?
hey,
Yeah - funny…it's been years since I heard of specific Estonian issues (and
caveat - I am estonian and know
Tarko). Back in 2007 there were plenty of problems but many have been cleaned
up. Some took a few years.
Still waiting for examples. I can say for sure that none of the major
o
On Aug 21, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> hey,
>
>> My home IP is in both the PBL and the SORBS DUL and I have no trouble
>> using ebay or paypal.
>
> Thanks for confirmation.
>
>> Given that the problem range is in Estonia, I expect that it's
hey,
My home IP is in both the PBL and the SORBS DUL and I have no trouble
using ebay or paypal.
Thanks for confirmation.
Given that the problem range is in Estonia, I expect that it's some
combination of abuse from the specific range and general issues with
traffic from Estonia.
hey,
Can you share the data that makes you think it's the former?
I can't say I'm absolutely sure, hence the question to wider audience.
But I can say that it's only subset of prefixes that are blocked
What I can do, is provide some blocked IPs as example:
90.190.226.239
90.191.156.199
84.5
>That seems really unlikely. If they were blocking access purely due to it
>being from dynamically assigned ranges,
>someone else would have noticed.
My home IP is in both the PBL and the SORBS DUL and I have no trouble
using ebay or paypal.
Given that the problem range is in Estonia,
On Aug 21, 2014, at 6:23 AM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> hey,
>
> For a while now, we have been getting complains from our broadband customers
> about not being able to reach ebay.com/paypal.com
>
> We have nailed it down to some small prefixes and they are all listed in
>
hey,
For a while now, we have been getting complains from our broadband
customers about not being able to reach ebay.com/paypal.com
We have nailed it down to some small prefixes and they are all listed in
SORBS DUHL / Spamhaus PBL and have been listed for ages. These are
indeed dynamic IP
On October 21, 2013 at 08:58 r.engehau...@gmail.com (Roy) wrote:
> I sent an email to SORBS some time ago and I received this yesterday
>
> Reason: unable to deliver this message after 135 days
>
> Got to admit that SORBS email servers aren't timely but they are
I sent an email to SORBS some time ago and I received this yesterday
Reason: unable to deliver this message after 135 days
Got to admit that SORBS email servers aren't timely but they are persistent.
>> Are you paying Trend for access to these? If not, you're not getting
>> any answers from them and they're not blocking anything.
>
>Do they return a canned answer that says "don't block", or do you get
>to wait for a DNS timeout?
Is there some reason you're asking random people rather than spe
i have not tested to see who catches what. not really into spam
research. just trying to reduce it for a server.
randy
dnslists = dialups.mail-abuse.org \
: rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org \
Are you paying Trend for access to these?
yes, i have an arrangement
I used to pay (not very much) but realized several years ago that after
using the Spamhaus lists, MAPS didn't catch any
On 13 Apr 2012 22:01:14 -, "John Levine" said:
> > dnslists = dialups.mail-abuse.org \
> > : rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org \
>
> Are you paying Trend for access to these? If not, you're not getting
> any answers from them and they're not blocking anything.
Do
>> dnslists = dialups.mail-abuse.org \
>> : rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org \
>
> Are you paying Trend for access to these?
yes, i have an arrangement
randy
> dnslists = dialups.mail-abuse.org \
> : rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org \
Are you paying Trend for access to these? If not, you're not getting
any answers from them and they're not blocking anything.
R's,
John
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
dropcondition = ${if isip4{$sender_host_address}}
message = blocked because $sender_host_address is \
in blacklist at $dnslist_domain: $dnslist_text
!dnslists = list.dnswl.org
dnslists
dropcondition = ${if isip4{$sender_host_address}}
message = blocked because $sender_host_address is \
in blacklist at $dnslist_domain: $dnslist_text
!dnslists = list.dnswl.org
dnslists = dialups.mail-abuse.org \
Generally when faced with SORBS related blocking, I have found it far more
effective to contact the receiving side and show them the ample Google
history about SORBS and the effect it has on their ability to receive email
their customers/employees have requested, and have them either change their
> Our ARIN allocation is:
>
> 67.217.144.0/20
>
> and SORBS had us listed within a larger black listed range, like the
> containing /12. It took us weeks to be removed from that range (or to
> have
> an exception added). This was probably a couple of years ago, or e
On 04/09/12 09:50 -0700, Brian Keefer wrote:
On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:41 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
As for SORBS, most competent mail admins dropped its use a long time
ago. I thought when Proofpoint took it over things would change (I
actually thought they would dump the SORBS name because of bad karma
On Apr 7, 2012, at 19:41 , TR Shaw wrote:
> As for Yahoo, the problem will probably go away on its own over time. The
> problem with companies that are in questionable/bad financial shape is that
> they defund many activities that do not seem important but actually are.
> These, such as abuse h
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:41 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
> >
> > As for SORBS, most competent mail admins dropped its use a long
> > time ago. I thought when Proofpoint took it over things would
> > change (I
On Apr 7, 2012, at 4:41 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
>
> As for SORBS, most competent mail admins dropped its use a long time ago. I
> thought when Proofpoint took it over things would change (I actually thought
> they would dump the SORBS name because of bad karma) but it hasn't
it either.
Its a real shame that the original high quality search engine/company that
everyone aspired to be on has fallen so far both financially and in quality.
As for SORBS, most competent mail admins dropped its use a long time ago. I
thought when Proofpoint took it over things would change
Something I'm considering is just limiting the max size of an email
from Yahoo severely, enough to say "I've changed my address from yahoo
to ___".
We get pounded day and night with multimegabyte (per each) spam emails
from them.
Yahoo isn't the only one but the most frequent.
--
-
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 08:33:10PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Clearly, this is idiotic reasoning and only when others start
> blocking their IP ranges and DNS servers will they ever wake up.
But how idiotic is it? Do you have all Yahoo IP space and
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
I recently had a similar run-in with another ISP unrelated to Yahoo. It
involved a phishing site on one of their customers. Countless emails to
their abuse@ email went unanswered. Then one day I bumped into their VP
who was trying to sell me somethin
Yahoo's "personnel" have long since demonstrated that (a) they couldn't
possibly care less about the spam, phishing, and other forms of abuse
that they're emanating, supporting or hosting on a systemic and chronic
basis (b) they are incapable of recognizing their own users, hosts,
and networks eve
> i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not
> even a single person
while i would not dispute what you think you think, i think you are
thinking quite incorrectly
randy
s that the senders MSP wind up carrying a lot of the cost; they
have to find an out-of-band method of engaging the receiving MSP,
advising them of the predicament, and justifying some sort of exception;
they also obviously have to be seen to try to get off the RBL (and we've
seen how hard SORB
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 7:25 AM, wrote:
> Yahoo is only a hegemony among spam havens, not a monopoly. There's still
> freelance havens out there, and they'll go away when SORBS does.
Sorbs did have a decent set of traps - and did catch a lot of spam.
The problem was atrociously
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:48:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> That's kind of vague to say it's "unlikely to see 1 abuser". What is
> the probability that
> more IPs in the same /24 are likely to harbor abusers, given that you have
> received abuse from one IP?
It's similar to pirhanas or cockroaches
o mail
On Friday, April 6, 2012, goe...@anime.net wrote:
The day SORBS goes away is the day ab...@yahoo.com starts functioning
properly and yahoo starts booting spammers.
The day SORBS goes away is the day BS like this stops happening:
- The following addresses had permanent fa
d due to spam content)
Right - that one is doing stupid stuff like filtering out spam reports sent
to abuse@ because they contain spam all by itself, without Yahoo's assistance.
Yahoo is only a hegemony among spam havens, not a monopoly. There's still
freelance havens out there, and th
i dont think anyone would miss sorbs if it was gone, dare i say it not even
a single person
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> > Brielle Bruns wrote:
> > to come from such a block is more often than not a
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Brielle Bruns wrote:
> to come from such a block is more often than not a necessity. It's very
> unlikely to see 1 abuser in between an otherwise perfectly behaving network
> neighbourhood.
That's kind of vague to say it's "unlikely to see
err, i dont know but yahoo hasnt yet acquired this random webhost whose
abuse you're trying to mail
On Friday, April 6, 2012, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> The day SORBS goes away is the day ab...@yahoo.com starts functioning
> properly and yahoo starts booting spammers.
>
> The da
Brielle Bruns wrote:
Unfortunately, the apathy of providers, backbones, and network operators
in general have created an environment that the almighty buck rules
everything.
I totally agree with pretty much everything in this email.
I also agree that blocking whole /24 or bigger when spam has
Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, wrote:
> > If it was industry-wide standard practice that just notifying a provider
> > resulted in something being done, we'd not need things like Senderbase,
> > which is after all basically a list of people who don't take action
> > whe
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 17:48, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> > But they will care about a /24.
>
> I'm curious as to why they would want to stop at /24. If you're going to
> take the shotgun approach, why not blacklist the entire ASN?
It's a bal
der your responsibility and
making nice to see that list empty. Pretty simple. Incidentally SORBS
usually blocks /24s and, as far as I know, provides no way for you to
lookup all listings under a providers responsibility (by AS or
otherwise).
That's really either not true or an oversimpl
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Ever wonder why it takes time for DNSbl's to process removals,
sometimes very long periods? Well, someone's gotta pay for that time
the removal person does it (and I have yet to see a dime of
compensation for the time I spend).
No, they don't.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
> So you're suggesting that hosting companies do what?
I believe I'm suggesting you use SORBS as your canary in the coal mine
and otherwise ignore them.
But if you're asking what hosting companies could do to proactively
pr
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, wrote:
> If it was industry-wide standard practice that just notifying a provider
> resulted
> in something being done, we'd not need things like Senderbase, which is after
> all basically a list of people who don't take action when notified...
>
[snip]
Pot callin
The day SORBS goes away is the day ab...@yahoo.com starts functioning
properly and yahoo starts booting spammers.
The day SORBS goes away is the day BS like this stops happening:
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
(reason: 554 rejected due to spam content
On 4/6/2012 12:35 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
>>> oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
>>> very thre
12 12:56 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
> That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something
>that a reputation list finds objectionable and take it down ourselves
>than have Senderbase
the idea is that you're supposed to proactively monitor your
systems for abuse and generally make your network inhospitable to
spammers, not just reactively move the customer to a new IP address
when the unpaid anti-spammers kindly let you know you've been
detected.
Personally I see SORBS as
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A wee
the point - if it was industry standard practice, reputation lists
at Senderbase, Spamhaus, and SORBS would *all 3* be out of business, because
the average spammer's lifespan at a provider would be less than the time it
takes the average reputation list to put up an entry.
pgpyOe35QJ6E1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A week?
You may have the right to list them and ch
Your attitude is
worrying. The "I am not responsible for who uses the blacklist or
what that means" isn't good enough anymore.
I know he's not the enemy. Hate the idea that he would be.
The only reason why I responded the way I did, was because I sit here,
watching everyone ta
On 04/06/2012 08:49 AM, George Herbert wrote:
This seems like a very 1999 anti-spam attitude.
I have been doing anti-spam a long long time - literally since before Canter
and Siegel (who I had as customers...) and before j...@cup.portal.com.
It's not 1999 anymore. Patrick is not the enemy. You
This seems like a very 1999 anti-spam attitude.
I have been doing anti-spam a long long time - literally since before Canter
and Siegel (who I had as customers...) and before j...@cup.portal.com.
It's not 1999 anymore. Patrick is not the enemy. Your attitude is worrying. The
"I am not respons
On 4/6/12 9:02 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
No, they don't. Many DNSBLs use self-service tools. Someone has to
write the tool, but the rest is automated. Total cost is power&
space, which is frequently donated (I have personally donated some
myself to DNSBLs I thought were well run).
Proxy
On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:54 , Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 4/4/12 3:36 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
>
>>>> It's best to not complain about it and just accept it as a fact of life
>>>> your IPs are listed on SORBS and move on. It's not the end of the world.
>>
On 4/4/12 3:36 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
> It's best to not complain about it and just accept it as a fact of life
> your IPs are listed on SORBS and move on. It's not the end of the world.
>
It turns into a customer service issue for most service providers.
Eh, guess t
06, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'goe...@anime.net'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:31:47 -0400, Drew Weaver said:
> That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something
> that a reputation list finds objectionable and take it d
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:31:47 -0400, Drew Weaver said:
> That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something that a
> reputation list finds objectionable and take it down ourselves than have
> Senderbase set a poor reputation on dozens of IaaS customers.
If it was industry-wide stan
e.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'Sam Oduor'; Chris Conn; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: SORBS?!
This is often the only way to get peoples attention and get action.
Providers dont care about individual /32's and will let them sit around and
spew nig
That's probably a better idea.
I moved "into" a /24 ip block that was SWIPed to me that they reported was
"dynamic cable/DSL users" (no spam history, mind you). Didn't matter, I
couldn't send e-mail.
When trying to get it delisted I had a TTL on the zone that was
"incompatible" with their standa
On 05/04/2012 17:48, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> But they will care about a /24.
I'm curious as to why they would want to stop at /24. If you're going to
take the shotgun approach, why not blacklist the entire ASN?
Nick
the listing and gives you a way to remove the listing.
Spamhaus encourages companies to resolve all the issues while only blocking
/32s by showing all the listings under your responsibility and making nice
to see that list empty. Pretty simple. Incidentally SORBS usually blocks
/24s and, as far as I k
ailto:sam.od...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Chris Conn
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming and
Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from sor
Oduor [mailto:sam.od...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Chris Conn
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming and
Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from
Some of the IP's I manage got blacklisted and its true they were spamming
and Sorbs had a very valid reason for blacklisting them.
I got this response response from sorbs after resolving the problem
amicably. Sorbs responded well on time.
*Your request appear to have been resolved. If you
On 2012-04-04 17:33:
Hi,
Actually knowing Chris, and his outfit, that 18k request seems
unwarranted :(
As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at http://support.sorbs.net/
which use the same username/password as https://www.us.sorbs.net. You can
follow up there with your
On 4 April 2012 14:27, Alain Hebert wrote:
>As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at http://support.sorbs.net/which
> use the same username/password as
> https://www.us.sorbs.net. You can follow up there with your ticket #, if
> their robot is being a bit too fascist. ( e
On 4 April 2012 14:21, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Landon Stewart wrote:
>
>> I think we should all just NULL ROUTE all of their IP space on our borders
>> to get their attention.
>>
>
> Yeah you're free to do that, as well as complain about it and SORBS in
>
after dealing
with their robot =D ).
As for being removed from their SPAM RBL that might be another story..
Actually knowing Chris, and his outfit, that 18k request seems
unwarranted :(
As for SORBS, they have a ticket system at
http://support.sorbs.net/ which use the same
Landon Stewart wrote:
I think we should all just NULL ROUTE all of their IP space on our borders
to get their attention.
Yeah you're free to do that, as well as complain about it and SORBS in
turn is free to put whatever the hell they feel like on their block
lists and not remove it a
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:55:46PM -0700, Landon Stewart wrote:
> On 4 April 2012 12:53, Chris Conn wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is anyone from SORBS still listening? We have a few IP addresses here
> > and there that are listed, one in particular that has been for
On 4 April 2012 12:53, Chris Conn wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is anyone from SORBS still listening? We have a few IP addresses here
> and there that are listed, one in particular that has been for a spam
> incident from over a year ago. The "last spam" date is 03/05/2011
&g
to "light blue touch paper and
retire to a safe distance" territory even mentioning them. There is a
good chance you might get a reply from Sorbs here, they almost always
seem to respond when things get raised on NANOG.
Paul
On 04/04/2012 09:53 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone fro
Good luck. Last time we heard back from them they were trying to extort
us for $18,000 to have a huge block of Ips removed. They were listed from
the day we received them from arin. After that we gave up on SORBS.
On 4/4/12 3:53 PM, "Chris Conn" wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Is anyo
Hello,
Is anyone from SORBS still listening? We have a few IP addresses here
and there that are listed, one in particular that has been for a spam
incident from over a year ago. The "last spam" date is 03/05/2011
according to their lookup tools.
We don't have access to th
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:17:02 CDT, trinity.edu's mailer, *not* "Brian R.
Watters" said:
> Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
> Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
> Message-Id: <1d95a7a9-8340-45e7-b803-03f1827326e1@brw-abs-office>
> Recipient: ge...@trinity
Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Re: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
Message-Id: <1d95a7a9-8340-45e7-b803-03f1827326e1@brw-abs-office>
Recipient: ge...@trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein...@trinity.edu
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked v
Sender: brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Re: SORBS contact
Message-Id: <8beae4f1-acd0-4408-9f75-264aff04d788@brw-abs-office>
Recipient: ge...@trinity.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein...@trinity.edu
--- Begin Message ---
Nope .. just like pain and suffering :(
- Original M
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:36:22 EDT, William Herrin said:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, wrote:
> >That sort of shoots your "If Woody had gone straight to the
> >SPF record, none of this would have happened" claim.
>
> My WHAT claim?
What you said:
> 2. I assume the subscription request came
ding other messages
with a null return path.
If my speculation is right, the Barracuda is behaving reasonably and
SORBS' use of the null return path ignores the SHOULD in an ill
considered manner. If your speculation is right, the Barracuda's
design bug is exacerbated by SORBS' ill c
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:18:17 EDT, William Herrin said:
> 2. I assume the subscription request came from a web page because if
> it was from an email request you received then you ignored my SPF
> records when generating the confirmation request. That was OK in 2001
> but in 2011 you ought not be d
requires 200 recipients for standard mail to classify such mail as 'bulk'[1].
That number seems quite high to me, but then again, 2-10 seems quite low.
In the past, I've had a heck of a time getting blocks delisted from SORBs -
even getting a PI assignment removed from the
ster@ is not in the required list.
> As per
> my previous email, the webservers (all of them) report another email
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting optional addresses such as
> webmaster@.
> I would fault SORBS for automatically
On 7/30/2011 2:33 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Ken Chase wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
>Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
>existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to a
em) report another email
[snip]
>
I wouldn't fault SORBS for not supporting optional addresses such as
webmaster@.
I would fault SORBS for automatically listing someone e-mailing
webmaster@ though,
as implied above. Whether the actual RFC existed or not.
It's probably true that
Ken Chase wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
>
> >Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
> >existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
>
> That's pretty rich.
>
> You enforce people to adopt standards that are part of propose
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, wrote:
> Hint: If somebody forges a subscription request from 'nosuchu...@herrin.us',
> do you want the resulting "Somebody has requested this email address to be
> added to the foobar-l list, please click or reply within 48 hours to confirm"
> mail to show up w
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:46:13 EDT, William Herrin said:
> Point taken. Bounce reports, temporary failure reports and successful
> delivery reports. Nevertheless, it still isn't for "other
> programmatically generated mail." In fact, the next paragraph in RFC
> 5321 4.5.5 says:
>
> "All other types
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
>Ok I'll accept that reference..I must admit I didn't know that RFC/STD
>existed so I learnt something today. ;-)
That's pretty rich.
You enforce people to adopt standards that are part of proposed RFC's, not
official by any s
.
There's enough sites running Listserv that it might be a bit more impact than
"I can't e-mail SORBS"...
I have always been amazed at how products like the Barracuda or the PIX can
ship with totally broken software, and yet get enough market share to cause so
much pain for the
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:48:44 EDT, William Herrin said:
>> Correction: It's a standard way to denote that "this mail is a bounce
>> report."
>
> It's *not* just "bounce reports" (in particular, DSNs and MDNs are not
> non-delivery (bounce) messages in the
satory tickets. Being snarky
> back gains little, if anything, and just helps promote a bad
> reputation. People forget good customer service (unless it surpasses
> that to brilliant), but remember bad service.
>
You will find that all responses from SORBS support staff to support
req
, just as "hostmaster" is the standard way to reach
> the administrator of the DNS service. So you're both wrong: SORBS,
> since it has a web site, should support the "webmaster" address; and
> you shouldn't send traffic there unless your enquiry is about
e wasn't any
mention of webmaster@ - both abuse@ and postmaster@ are valid addresses
that go to real people, neither will respond to any type of delisting
requests.)
FWIW, you get an error on the SORBS website you get the email address to
reach the administrators, it is not webmaster@, it'
quot;, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
> administrator of a service.
Per RFC 2142 section 5, it's the standard way to reach the administrator
of the HTTP service, just as "hostmaster" is the standard way to reach
the administrator of the DNS service. So you'r
1 - 100 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
