aecioneto wrote: >> I think a few people have already mentioned it, but your IP is >> listed > in SORBS: >> >> Remote host said: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See: >> http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?200.207.18.245 >> >> Best bet is to get it removed. > > Great! > I will start making money this way: > 1. I start listing a whole bunch of IPs as dynamic. > 2. When they complain about it, they have to pay me to clean them up. > That would be interesting. According to SORBS, there is no charge for removal: http://www.us.sorbs.net/overview.shtml "Note: Use of this service is currently free of charge. References to the SORBS fine refers ONLY to the database of received spam. There is no charge for removal from the proxy, vulnerablility, relay, zombie or DUHL databases."
You're in the DUHL database. > > That's why I am aguing about such a great list setting up to use such > a stupid blocking listing services. > The problem, as many others have told you, is the ISP. The SORBS owners have you down in *two* levels of block - apparently because dynamic IPs are allocated in that area by both your ISP and their upstream. SORBS (rightly, IMO) decided that the cost of NOT listing that netblock is much higher. My personal experience, after receiving many thousands of spam attempts from Brazilian (dynamic) IPs, and after sending hundreds of documented complaints, is that the ISPs are uninterested in fixing their spam problem. > So, here is my point: take my ip 200.207.18.245. > I want someone to *prove* that it is a dsl static IP. > No way a bad SORBS entry is enough. > > Regards. The entity that needs to *prove* that you've got a static IP is the *owner* of that IP - the ISP. That is the entity that SORBS (or other reputable blocking lists) will talk to about the problem. Unfortunately, they seem to be uninterested in doing anything above the bare minimum needed to maintain IP connectivity. Railing against the list, or the list owners, won't do anything except piss people off. The reason why the list (and many others) uses SORBS is because *it works*. It has been shown, over a period of years, to be reliable. Demanding that the list stop using SORBS would not be an efficient use of your time. Demanding that your ISP act like a responsible entity would be more useful. In my opinion, here are the things they should do: 1) Segregate dynamic IPs into one netblock, static IPs into another. 2) Publish/make SORBS aware of those blocks - both static and dynamic. 3) Make sure that the truly dynamic block does not permit outbound port 25 access beyond their network. 4) As a followup to #3, this would require all dynamic IPs who want to run their own mail server to smarthost their outgoing mail through the ISP, who can the throttle based upon load, spamminess, etc. 5) Respond quickly, and assertively, to spam complaints. Any guesses on how many they'll end up doing? Don't all answer at once... -Don
