<quote who="DaZZa"> > > Unfortunately, so are SORBS. > > Care to elaborate? > > If sorbs are that bad, I'll stop using them if someone can give me a > balanced argument as to WHY they're bad.
First off, their methods and policies for adding and keeping IP addresses (but usually whole blocks) are pretty shonky. Bodgy tests, insisting that a number of infractions lists you for a full year (and similar rules), and the worst is aggregating all of their lists - even the very suspect ones - into a single rbl (which is basically what all SORBS users use). Most removals are done manually, not via automated checks. Many of their lists are whacked enough by definition that they require manual checks. Insane. You really have to read their webpage (http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/) to see just how crack they are. Additionally, to get off some of their lists, you must make a $50 donation to a suggested or chosen charity. That's just flat-out extortion - even though it sounds all very nice and dandy, and we should wring spammers necks, and yada yada yada, SORBS are so willy-nilly with their shotgun approach that they affect everyone. - Jeff -- GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norway http://2004.guadec.org/ "Gah. Out of coffee. Shall think whilst auto-caffeinating." - Telsa Gwynne -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
