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
---BeginMessage---
Nope .. just like pain and suffering :(
- Original Message
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
---BeginMessage---
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our
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.edu.test-google-a.com, Forwarded:
gerno.rein
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
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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? You asked if I wanted mailing list confirmation
requests that arrive at my mail server to have a non-null
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 18:36:22 EDT, William Herrin said:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard
Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
administrator of a
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@*
Paul Graydon wrote:
It's pretty much customer service 101 to ensure that you keep your
communications as neutral and polite as possible, regardless of how
frustrated or vilified you feel by the person you're supporting, and
regardless of how tired you are of accusatory tickets. Being snarky
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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)
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:52:50 +0200, Michelle Sullivan said:
reference to bounce messages and mailing lists.) The registration email
has a null return path because people will put in forged addresses and
we don't want them to do that in the first place, and if they do it, we
certainly don't
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
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 of
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 proposed RFC's,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.netwrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
[snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list. As per
my previous email, the webservers (all of them)
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
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net
mailto:matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Dan Collins wrote:
[snip]
later in the document, Webmaster@ is not in the required list.
A valid and well put argument. I don't know what we do with stuff to
webmaster@ however I do know that it is possible that messages to it
will go into the spamtrap system. (the spamtrap system has multiple
entry points, and a mail going in does not guarentee a listing, but it
is likely,
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:16:23 PDT, Brian R. Watters said:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due to
the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda thinks
its SPAM
Please clarify. Are they sending
MAIL FROM:(syntactically
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:46 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And you might want to fix it, since your users will never get a bounce notice
from any RFC-compliant mailer - even if they *wanted* to know that their mail
wasn't delivered. is the RFC-standard way to denote this mail is a
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.
Correction to your correction: What the RFC actually says:
4.5.5. Messages with a Null Reverse-Path
There are several types of notification messages that
William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:46 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And you might want to fix it, since your users will never get a bounce notice
from any RFC-compliant mailer - even if they *wanted* to know that their mail
wasn't delivered. is the RFC-standard way to
William Pitcock wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration
process is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
As I recall it, you can manually
On 29/07/2011 22:55, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Friendly or non friendly response is usually gaugable in advance by the
tone of the initial email.
Which is usually gaugeable in advance by the tone of the customer
complaints that precipitated contact with SORBS in the first place.
Email is such a
On 07/29/2011 12:24 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/07/2011 22:55, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Friendly or non friendly response is usually gaugable in advance by the
tone of the initial email.
Which is usually gaugeable in advance by the tone of the customer
complaints that precipitated contact
On 28 July 2011 14:16, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due
to the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda
thinks its SPAM .. just to darn funny .. I have whitelisted their domain so
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Email is such a lousy medium for this. We're all much more decent people
in person than over snarky emails.
Speak for yourself!
Landon Stewart wrote:
On 28 July 2011 14:16, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
Thanks .. their attempts to reach us are blocked via our Barrcacuda's due
to the fact that they are sending with a blank FROM: and as such Barracuda
thinks its SPAM .. just to darn funny .. I have
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michelle Sullivan matt...@sorbs.net wrote:
Emailing random non-existent email addresses (such as
webmas...@sorbs.net) will earn you a listing...
webmaster@* isn't random, it's a fairly standard way to reach the
administrator of a service. A failure to support
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 PDT, Brian R. Watters said:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration process
is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
You're new here, aren't you? :)
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Previous discussion on NANOG:
http
wrote:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration
process is less than friendly if somehow you get listed by them.
As I recall it, you can manually create an account on their
request-tracker instance and open a ticket through that requesting
delisting... however
with SORBS anytime he wants :)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.netwrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
We are looking for a SORBS contact as their web site and registration
process is less
brwatt...@absfoc.com, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:47:56 PM
Subject: [BULK] Re: SORBS contact
You want to speak to SORBS? Good luck with that. Unless you are Chuck Norris;
Chuck Norris can speak with SORBS anytime he wants :)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, William Pitcock
Nope .. just like pain and suffering :(
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
To: Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:44:29 PM
Subject: Re: SORBS contact
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:31:13 PDT, Brian R
He's the most interesting man in the world...SORBS is on HIS list and
can't get off.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool Die|
mailop list? I run a dnsbl myself (dronebl to be exact), call me dumb or
whatever, but never heard about that list.
In fact, I am also working on granting AS admins to be able to list
entries in their ranges etc, so if you are listed in whois as
administrator of an AS and you want access to
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
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
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
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
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Atkins st...@blighty.com
To: nanog@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
karma for them to get past.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Atkinsst...@blighty.com
To: nanog@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
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
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.
On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
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
For future reference: you're much more likely to elicit a useful
response by using the mailop list, since you'll be addressing
a mixed audience of mail system operators, DNSBL operators, software
authors, etc., all of whom are focused on mail and not network operations.
---rsk
Hello,
We have opened a number of tickets in the SORBS DUHL system to notify
them of the use of a former dialup /24 for static assignments to no
avail. Anyone from SORBS reading this?
Thank you,
Chris Conn
B2B2C.ca
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 04:31:21PM -0400, TR Shaw said:
One might wonder about the quality of the mail admins that rely on SORBS
You might try http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support
One might also do other things that are to no avail,
one of such things is to read this and
Hello,
I did try to reach someone at SORBS using their contact forms on the
website. Somehow no action was taken and I also didn't get a response. Could
someone from SORBS contact me? I need an issue to be resolved.
With kind regards,
Mark Scholten
SinnerG BV
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.comwrote:
[ clip ]
Lastly, I'm going to suggest that this is drifting rather afar OT from
the charter of the group, and suggest that the MLM may want to put the
kibosh on this thread.
That's exactly what happened the
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500
William Pitcock neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting
service is that slow on
On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500
William Pitcock neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Mark Smith wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
Also, I believe SORBS are the ones that require a donation to get out if
A 'required donation' sounds like a ransom to me.
From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:58:35 -0400
On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500
William Pitcock neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05
[SNIP]
Everyone,
Please do not CC nanog@nanog.org when replying to one of Dean
Anderson's ... uh ... missives[*]. We do not see the original, so by
replying and CC'ing the list, you are helping him get his ... er ...
message[*] to a wider audience. And if you have actually read any of
How about, Don't reply to Dean Anderson. :-)
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
[SNIP]
Everyone,
Please do not CC nanog@nanog.org when replying to one of Dean Anderson's
... uh ... missives[*]. We do not see the original, so by replying and
On Jul 11, 4:58 pm, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
P.S. Anyone looking to find a good DNSBL, I would recommend Al
Iverson's web page, http://www.dnsbl.com/. Hrmmm, AHBL is not
listed there. Al's pretty clueful about such things
People bitch and whine about free services more than when they actually
pay for something. Sad.
That's the nature of people who want something for nothing. When you charge,
even a little bit, you select the bottom part of the gene pool out of your
client base.
I need to resolve some issues that we are having with you guys but there is
a lack of timelyness with your contact forms, 28 days is simply unacceptable
:(
Sorbs was shut down just about that time ago ..
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Ronald Cotoniseti...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to resolve some issues that we are having with you guys but there is
a lack of timelyness with your contact forms, 28 days is simply unacceptable
:(
--
Suresh
Ronald Cotoni wrote:
I need to resolve some issues that we are having with you guys but there is
a lack of timelyness with your contact forms, 28 days is simply unacceptable
:(
You might also try on the spam-l.org mailing list.
~Seth
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ronald Cotoniseti...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to resolve some issues that we are having with you guys but there is
a lack of timelyness with your contact forms, 28 days is simply unacceptable
:(
From www.sorbs.net:
It comes with great sadness that I have to
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Christopher
Morrowmorrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From www.sorbs.net:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
[snip]
You might want to read the June 25th update they made to the
announcement, as shown on the very same page.
SORBS has
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:34:58 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Christopher
Morrowmorrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From www.sorbs.net:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
[snip]
You might want to read the June 25th
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.comwrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:34:58 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
I find it unacceptable that people demand instant service from a company
they don't have prior business arrangements/relationship
On Jul 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a
blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
I find it unacceptable that people demand instant service from a
company
Hi Brielle.
Do they take two weeks to put a spammer on the list?
Regards,
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
-Original Message-
From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Can someone from SORBS
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
--nvieira
- Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote:
Average turn around time for the AHBL is around two weeks if we don't have an
established contact and procedure with.
they take two weeks to put a spammer on the list?
Regards,
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
-Original Message-
From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Given that you said AHBL requires two weeks to remove good IP addresses
unless there is an established contact, I'll be sure never to use said
list. Suppose my business partner gets listed? Am I to ruin our
relationship for two weeks because you are busy or don't
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting
service is that slow on responding to problems.
I find it unacceptable that people demand instant service from a
I wouldn't condone usage of SORBS' lists, because they sometimes use
robots to automatically list things that have little rational basis
for being listed, which causes problems. But it may be hard to
convince your mail recipients to avoid the same.
Commonly, providers may give un-assigned
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL hate? At the very least they have a
responsive human and - last time I checked - they don't require an
exchange of money to get off the list. I'd hazard a guess that two
weeks includes
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL hate? At the very least they have a
responsive human and - last time I checked - they don't require an exchange
of money to get off the
- Original Message -
From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist?
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL
On 7/11/09 12:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Given that you said AHBL requires two weeks to remove good IP addresses
unless there is an established contact, I'll be sure never to use said
list. Suppose my business partner gets listed? Am I to ruin our
relationship for two weeks because you
On 7/11/09 3:30 PM, Micheal Patterson wrote:
Proxy removal is functioning (sort of). Any other type of removal is no
longer possible.
Do not contact us about removals.
That's quoted from their web site. No method of communications except
through the proxy, which is only sort of working. So, if
On Jul 11, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Further, there is such thing as a local whitelist of IP addresses.
Easier to just not use the BL.
Besides, there are plenty of useful blacklists with very low FP rates
who are responsive. Why use one that has high FP and is
unresponsive?
On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
That's good to know.
I'll avoid using it.
Holy crap, what's with all the AHBL hate? At the very least they
have a responsive human and - last time I checked - they don't
require an exchange of money to get off the
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Sadly, this is for remote hosts. I have no idea why someone would use such
services as there are too many false positives.
Desperation in trying to limit the amount of spam delivered.
It is like using an IDS that is 2 weeks behind on it's
81 matches
Mail list logo
