Am 07.06.24 um 23:33 schrieb Bill Cole:
You do not even need to do that.
All SORBS-referencing rules were removed from the updates.spamasssassin.org
rules channel earlier this week. Scanning the latest deployed (by sa-update)
version r1918114 I see no surviving references to SORBS.
since
On 2024-06-06 at 19:53:02 UTC-0400 (Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:53:02 -0400)
J Doe
is rumored to have said:
[...]
> Hi Rob and list,
>
> Speaking as a small user of SORBS via SpamAssassin 4.0, I assume the
> correct response to disable use of SORBS is to place the following in my
>
sting the
world" - so this shouldn't cause false any positives - but might cause
some false negatives, especially for anyone who was overly relying on
SORBS in their spam filtering? But yet - after some years - lists like
this - once they've been dead for many many years - do /sometimes/ "list
th
some false negatives, especially for anyone who was overly relying on
SORBS in their spam filtering? But yet - after some years - lists like
this - once they've been dead for many many years - do sometimes "list
the world" as a final push to get others to stop using them - if that
Onderwerp:
[mailop] SORBS Closing.
Datum:
Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:36:58 +1000
Van:
Michelle Sullivan via mailop
Antwoord-naar
A little heads-up from the MailOp mailinglist.
So is there anything that needs to be done to prevent false positives
happening right after the shutdown?
Doorgestuurd bericht
Onderwerp: [mailop] SORBS Closing.
Datum: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:36:58 +1000
Van:Michelle
> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/XPl5OZ0y/sorbs.pl
>
> lets just test more dns fails, please fix qname, reduce zones that ends
> in same nameserver ip
>
Yes, seeing that here, too, for months and months.
Spamhaus also sucks real bad.
06-Oct-2023 13:57:12.880 resolver: loop detected resolving
https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/XPl5OZ0y/sorbs.pl
lets just test more dns fails, please fix qname, reduce zones that ends
in same nameserver ip
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
On 15.01.23 10:53, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
I get my mail from this list via that machine:
Jan 15 16:20:51
not using sorbs
That's the mail infrastructure run by infrastructure at Apache not by
the projects. See https://infra.apache.org/
i can't confirm infra only
The mailing lists at Apache are run by Infra not the project. If you
are having delivery issues, see that website and make sure you open a
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2023-01-15 16:56:
On 1/15/2023 10:53 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
Checking more
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2023-01-15 16:53:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
or none are using sorbs
https://www.dnswl.org/s/?s=3084
i gave
On 1/15/2023 10:53 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
Checking more thoroughtly SpamAssassin.apache.org is on
>
> https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
>
> but who cares ?
What is the problem? I am even surprised that there are so many green listings.
I have even configured that hosts with a reverse xxx.your-server.de are not
allowed to connect.
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
On Sat, 2018-04-07 at 02:07 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > I'm getting a lot of SORBS lookups rejected due to an "unexpected
> > RCODE". Is anybody else seeing these?
>
> I'm sure someone is...
>
On 6 Apr 2018, at 8:08, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I'm getting a lot of SORBS lookups rejected due to an "unexpected
RCODE". Is anybody else seeing these?
I'm sure someone is...
There are none of those where I see. If the "unexpected RCODE" is
SERVFAIL, it was likely tr
I'm getting a lot of SORBS lookups rejected due to an "unexpected
RCODE". Is anybody else seeing these?
I'm running BIND 9.11.3-RedHat-9.11.3-2.fc27
Martin
Am 20.04.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Michelle Sullivan:
$ /opt/local/bin/whois 174.36.198.233
[... ARIN record elided ...]
Found a referral to rwhois.softlayer.com:4321.
%rwhois V-1.5:003fff:00 rwhois.attcloudarchitect.com (by Network
Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.6)
network:Class-Name:network
, the last 3 are in small blocks allocated by SoftLayer to GFI
Software, the former owner of SORBS.
Where do you see GFI? Nothing should show GFI (all the SL stuff is
owned by Proofpoint)
Tell that to SL, e.g.:
$ /opt/local/bin/whois 174.36.198.233
[... ARIN record elided ...]
Found a referral
are in small blocks allocated by SoftLayer to GFI
Software, the former owner of SORBS.
Where do you see GFI? Nothing should show GFI (all the SL stuff is
owned by Proofpoint)
Tell that to SL, e.g.:
$ /opt/local/bin/whois 174.36.198.233
[... ARIN record elided ...]
Found a referral
update frequency. The other 2 (rbldns0 and rbldns1) aren't
> responding at all. Interestingly, the upstream glue NS records (from
> the sorbs.net authority) pointing at the rbldns$x names have 10-minute
> TTLs,
> In effect, that means SORBS can swap IP's for their nameservers in
On 13 May 2015, at 20:24, Chris wrote:
So I guess then that the bottom line is that eventually the queries are
getting through to SORBS but I'll still be seeing some errors and just
don't worry about it. Does that sound about right?
Yes.
/up0A2xD1
Chris
On May 12, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to turn off queries to SORBS so I don't keep seeing
this
in my logs:
error (connection refused) resolving
'23.164.11.209.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN': 67.228.187.34#53
I have Bind9 setup
Chris wrote:
Is there a way to turn off queries to SORBS so I don't keep seeing this
in my logs:
error (connection refused) resolving
'23.164.11.209.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN': 67.228.187.34#53
I have Bind9 setup as a caching name server and am using 127.0.0.1 as my
DNS.
Are you seeing
From: Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Jeremy McSpadden
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Turning off queries to SORBS
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 02:05 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
dig +trace and see if your ISP is intercepting queries
On 5/13/2015 10:08 AM, David Jones wrote:
From: Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Jeremy McSpadden
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Turning off queries to SORBS
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 02:05 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
dig +trace and see
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:35 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Turning off queries to SORBS
Am 13.05.2015 um 19:26 schrieb David Jones:
Connection refused errors are specific UDP responses from upstream DNS
servers that are being
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 13:49 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Chris wrote:
Not upset about the 'noise', to my untrained eye it looks to me as if
the lookups are failing:
chris@localhost:/var/log$ grep 'connection refused' /var/log/syslog|grep
sorbs|awk '{ print $10; }'|sort|uniq -c
1
On 13 May 2015, at 16:58, Chris wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 13:49 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Chris wrote:
Not upset about the 'noise', to my untrained eye it looks to me as
if
the lookups are failing:
chris@localhost:/var/log$ grep 'connection refused'
/var/log/syslog|grep
sorbs|awk
$ grep 'connection refused'
/var/log/syslog|grep
sorbs|awk '{ print $10; }'|sort|uniq -c
1 '11.1.4.96.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':
1 '114.210.57.173.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':
1 '139.207.161.25.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':
1 '183.163.46.207.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':
1 '54.139.130.12
the new configuration, and probably fresh new
confusing log entries.
chris@localhost:~$ grep 'connection refused' /var/log/syslog.1|grep
sorbs|awk '{ print $11; }'|sort|uniq -c
2 113.52.8.150#53
8 174.36.198.233#53
14 174.36.235.174#53
9 67.228.187.34#53
Again, to my
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 10:12 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
Chris wrote:
Is there a way to turn off queries to SORBS so I don't keep seeing this
in my logs:
error (connection refused) resolving
'23.164.11.209.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN': 67.228.187.34#53
I have Bind9 setup as a caching name
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 14:08 +, David Jones wrote:
From: Chris cpoll...@embarqmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Jeremy McSpadden
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Turning off queries to SORBS
On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 02:05 +, Jeremy McSpadden wrote:
dig
simpler.) About all switching would do is give you minor
headaches learning the new configuration, and probably fresh new
confusing log entries.
chris@localhost:~$ grep 'connection refused' /var/log/syslog.1|grep
sorbs|awk '{ print $11; }'|sort|uniq -c
2 113.52.8.150#53
8
Am 14.05.2015 um 00:59 schrieb Kris Deugau:
As far as running something other than Bind, I'd run it for many years
on my old Mandriva box before it crashed. Once I got it up and running
(with some help from the Bind users list) I never had one single
problem.
*nod* I continue to use it on my
for each failing DNS query on a heavy used
network you would have a lot to cry - as long as you are not using a
forwarder there is not much reason to worry, except your IP itself is on
a sorbs blacklist and hence refused - maybe your MX is listed as DUL
which is no problem if it is only incoming mail
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:53 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Turning off queries to SORBS
Am 13.05.2015 um 18:17 schrieb Chris:
# Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
resolvconf(8)
# DO NOT EDIT
Am 13.05.2015 um 18:17 schrieb Chris:
# Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
resolvconf(8)
# DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 127.0.0.1
search PK5001Z
as already suggested days ago REMOVE search
Am 13.05.2015 um 19:26 schrieb David Jones:
Connection refused errors are specific UDP responses from upstream DNS
servers that are being denied due to rate limiting, bad query packets, or
something
that simply ticked off that upstream DNS server. I would point to a different
DNS server or
Chris wrote:
Not upset about the 'noise', to my untrained eye it looks to me as if
the lookups are failing:
chris@localhost:/var/log$ grep 'connection refused' /var/log/syslog|grep
sorbs|awk '{ print $10; }'|sort|uniq -c
1 '11.1.4.96.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':
1 '114.210.57.173
Is there a way to turn off queries to SORBS so I don't keep seeing this
in my logs:
error (connection refused) resolving
'23.164.11.209.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN': 67.228.187.34#53
I have Bind9 setup as a caching name server and am using 127.0.0.1 as my
DNS.
Chris
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
://www.fluxlabs.net/
On May 12, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Chris
cpoll...@embarqmail.commailto:cpoll...@embarqmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to turn off queries to SORBS so I don't keep seeing this
in my logs:
error (connection refused) resolving
'23.164.11.209.dnsbl.sorbs.net/A/IN':http://dnsbl.sorbs.net
would have liked to see hard
evidence that someone was _forced_ to pay the 50 donation to be
delisted, because all I here is the web site says it which frankly
doesn't cut it with me, we were nobody special to SORBS, so I can't see
why they'd remove us for free but forcibly demand payments from others
12:16, Noel Butler wrote:
Lastly, I would have thought SA dev team would have liked to see hard
evidence that someone was _forced_ to pay the 50 donation to be
delisted, because all I here is the web site says it which frankly
doesn't cut it with me, we were nobody special to SORBS, so I can't
I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 # n
Interesting. Will cross-post to dev and see if anyone has some
input.
On 12/16/2011 12:22 PM, Lutz Petersen wrote:
I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK
On 12/16, Lutz Petersen wrote:
I know some of the discussions in the past about usage of Sorbs RBLs
in Spamassassin. The scores today are as follows:
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 2.499 0 0.001
the odd
different outbound smtp server listed with them, typically we were
alerted of the listing quickly (by use of mon) , a login to the SORBS
site for info, and the culprit was identified and we were unlisted in
hours, only one time did it take about 24 hours, and, IIRC, that was a
holiday season
, it is
more
than likely that the spammer on my shared server does not have an email
address or even know about a domain i'm trying to send email to. So
because
this spammer-1 sends a message that SORBS consider's spam to XYZ.com,
ABC.com blocks my email along with anyone else that is hosted on my
address or even know about a domain i'm trying to send email to. So because
this spammer-1 sends a message that SORBS consider's spam to XYZ.com,
ABC.com blocks my email along with anyone else that is hosted on my server
eventhough no one at any of the domains hosted on my server intends to spam
Addresses See:
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?67.210.225.171 (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
- End forwarded message -
oh... with 300 TTL we should better not trust you this is NOT dynamic IP.
It's one of things mentioned at SORBS page...
171.225.210.67.in-addr.arpa. 300
Figured I'd forward this along, since he can't post to the list due
apparently to this list's use of sorbs. The IP address I got it from was
67.210.225.171.
Interestingly, sorbs' website says it's not actively listed, but their DNS
zone says otherwise.
And their website conveys a general
If you go through the garbage required to register to get to the contents
of this link, you'll see that this IP hits two listings, Escalated
entries, and DUHL entries, both of which are colored green, which it says
means Historical Listings (inactive). But it's still listed:
$ host
the hoops (both BT I) and after several
fraught weeks the issue was resolved.
Now we hit November 27th this year, suddenly I'm in SORBS again.
Nothing changed this end, same IP, same RIPE entry, same everything...
apart from SORBS, who, apparently, redid their db at the end of
November. Happily I am
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:04:18 +, corpus.defero
corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:
Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a
SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think
it belongs here.
Indeed, and it's Lynford and his money grabbing
Hi All,
Is sorbs going to be continued as a scoring option in SA?
Having hit yet more problems with them I've zeroed their scoring.
I found this a couple of days ago, maybe it can add weight.
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful/
Best to all
Nigel
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:58 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Is sorbs going to be continued as a scoring option in SA?
Having hit yet more problems with them I've zeroed their scoring.
...
I hope so. I find SORBS wonderful in dealing with those troublesome
mailers that have managed
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/
On 12/14/2010 8:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/12/gfi-sorbs-considered-harmful-part-5/
I've seen the headaches of getting off SORBS, but how did you really end
up there?
While I agree that SORBS is not reliable enough for use at the MTA
level, I've not seen
Ultimately, this seems to be more of a witch hunt against SORBS than a
SA issue. Although I'm not opposed to a SORBS witch hunt, I don't think
it belongs here.
Indeed, and it's Lynford and his money grabbing cronies mostly behind it
- hence it lacks sophistication.
corpus.defero wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 20:13 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:56 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Indeed no IP should be blacklisted undefinitely... at least
without checking regularily.
I don't agree. An IP that hops on and
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 15:58 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 20:13 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:56 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Indeed no IP should be blacklisted undefinitely... at least
without
corpus.defero wrote:
This is all OT for a Spamassassin. If you want to bitch about
blocklists why not do it on SPAM-L or at NANAE?
I'm not bitching about anything.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 05:27 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate zone
See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
Went to their web site and can't find
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:56 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
on getting delisted at SORBS.
At least they give a time window :) Try to know why you're listed at
barracuda: This is true pain!
This is not correct. Barracuda offer a 24 hour phone service when you
can speak to a real person should
abuse will come
from it.
How does that differ from what Alexandre said?
As for SORBS, the easy way to get delisted and quit whining about how
long it takes, is to *not* get listed in the first place.
Which is clearly not to get *delisted*, but to avoid having the need to
be.
It's really
Le vendredi 08 octobre 2010 à 18:55 +0100, corpus.defero a écrit :
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:56 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
on getting delisted at SORBS.
At least they give a time window :) Try to know why you're listed at
barracuda: This is true pain!
This is not correct. Barracuda
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 08:19 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
This is not correct. Barracuda offer a 24 hour phone service when you
can speak to a real person should you have an issue. Getting delisted is
simple but ongoing offenders can simply forget it.
Cool! Calling some indian call
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 20:13 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:56 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
Indeed no IP should be blacklisted undefinitely... at least without
checking regularily.
I don't agree. An IP that hops on and off lists should stay ON
are appeasing is really their low FP rate. This is
why Google made a blacklist to fight phish and malware --- Google wanted FP
that is well below 1% (0.04% IIRC)
A blacklist with high FP, such as SORBS, is no use. We'd better use heuristics,
at least we can fight zero hour attacks with = FP
Hello Marc Perkel,
Am 2010-10-07 05:27:39, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
Went to their web
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate zone
See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
Went to their web site and can't find a way to remove it. Their web site
is barely responsive
Marc Perkel wrote:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
host 106.42.49.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net.
106.42.49.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net has address
On 10/7/2010 6:42 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBLhttp://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
host 106.42.49.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net
* Marc Perkel supp...@junkemailfilter.com:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net/overview.shtml
I feel your pain.
Went to their web site and can't find
* Marc Perkel supp...@junkemailfilter.com:
Got this listing on sorbs:
On 07.10.10 16:33, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
No idea. We also got listed and can't even find out why. It says last
occurence somedate.in.2006 - WTF?
our ranges that have been removed from DUHL years ago got there again
On 10/7/2010 7:56 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
* Marc Perkelsupp...@junkemailfilter.com:
Got this listing on sorbs:
On 07.10.10 16:33, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
No idea. We also got listed and can't even find out why. It says last
occurence somedate.in.2006 - WTF?
our ranges that have
Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
are up they have a lot of people blacklists that shouldn't be. I noticed
that this list uses sorbs and the admins might want to disable it.
I don't know what's happening but I wish them the best.
I can't see any problem right now with SORBS... is it related to a
specific Sorbs DNSBL?
Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 09:09 -0700, Marc Perkel a écrit :
Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
are up they have a lot of people blacklists that shouldn't be. I noticed
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:29 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
I can't see any problem right now with SORBS... is it related to a
specific Sorbs DNSBL?
Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 09:09 -0700, Marc Perkel a écrit :
Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
are up
Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 16:33 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
* Marc Perkel supp...@junkemailfilter.com:
Got this listing on sorbs:
SORBS DNSBL http://www.de.sorbs.net/ 127.0.0.2 Aggregate
zone See: http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?65.49.42.106;
http://www.de.sorbs.net
There's a good article just popped up on The Register about the SORBS
problem. It mostly seems to have come from a conversation with Michelle
Sullivan. It gives details of what happened and why and points out that
the DOS attack happened to coincide with the problem but didn't cause
it.
http
Lee Dilkie wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
The choice of ISP for your client connection is unrelated to the
choice of ISP
- Original Message -
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was
involved in setting that up in Cyprus.
Nigel
Is there such a thing?
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: [OT] Was SORBS
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:09 +0100
Organization: Blue Canoe Networks
Message-ID: kfblt5t3h1mksks6taaa9r1kohe1psj...@blue-canoe.net
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer
-mail: ab...@bt.net
remarks:trouble: 1st Line Support
remarks:Please send delisting issues to btnet...@bt.net
... and they have actually spoken with SORBS?
The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
this - as a customer you can do nothing
On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the chuckle
Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
following message for users@spamassassin.apache.org.
Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses
wishing to come accross rude. I accept your points as they are,
in part, valid. But;
1. In this case the OP has a choice and has elected to trust a
notoriously awful former state owned ISP to deal with it.
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who
On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
one choice for high-speed internet access
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many
SORBS, though I did, they have a fixed set of
rules. If I or my upline provider fails.. well, such is life. BT for
what it's worth are very aware of their market and the issues, with
luck they and SORBS will open a dialogue.
As admins we face and deal with issues every day, sometimes it's nice
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
in setting that up in Cyprus.
Nigel
Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled,
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, corpus.defero
corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
in setting that
with them.
If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
'have you re-booted your router' etc.
That depends on who you go with. People like Zen, IDNET, aaisp, Newnet
are actually much better than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
much more knowledgeable. This SORBS
than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
much more knowledgeable. This SORBS issue would not even be an issue
with them as they had the brains to sort out their space - rather than
just try and cluelessly blindmug sell it so SOHO's.
Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
in setting that up in Cyprus.
How about a cheap hosted VPS to handle your outbound mail? If that's all
it's
1 - 100 of 355 matches
Mail list logo
