From owner-nanog@merit.edu Tue Mar 15 11:59:40 2005
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:21 -0800
From: Micah McNelly <micah@style.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: sorbs.net
Nanog,
Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to
someone ASAP. No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators
group.
SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion.
if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS
listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request
that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you.
*THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their
system.
Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site. it works reliably.
Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to
urgency on the part of anyone else.
Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable
contribution. All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS
system, eventually.
Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist,
for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_
requirements). I don't even know the operator thereof. Everything I've
said is based on published and publicly available information.
Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs at some level. Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery? What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
But seriously, the analogy here is a bit false. It would be like
the recipient of the mail signed up to use a service that inspected
their mail for them, and made the decisions you are describing.
You can argue that signing up for such a service is silly, wrong headed,
ill informed and results in unintended consequences. But you cannot argue
that it is government censorship.
SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion.
if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS
listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request
that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you.
*THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their
system.
Come on, that's just nonsense. If the New York Times publishes a front page
article about how you're an idiot, should you contact each individual person
who reads the article and try to convince them you're not? Or should you try
to convince the New York Times that they're incorrect and should publish a
correction?
Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery?
Yes. For instance, you might be lucky enough to live somewhere where the
the local default postal service actually obeys the 'No junk mail' sticker
on your letterbox and only delivers cards and bills.
What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was
suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
Sorry. The mechanics of Internet Mail delivery are more like
inter-company couriers, with each company (mail server) having its own set
of bonded couriers to deliver packages to remote companies. There is no
lowest-common-denominator delivery service such as the USPS in Internet
terms.
Blacklists, in the company courier terms, are the equivilant of packages
being delivered to (your company's) reception by a courier, and your
company refusing to accept said packages because they do not meet with the
company's guidelines (eg, sending company has a bad credit rating, as
reported by the BadCreditAgency Inc). The other company's courier must
then take the package back and perhaps try another office of your company.
Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to someone ASAP. No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
Not quite, though it is owned by me.
I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators
group.
erm, no
Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site. it works reliably. Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to urgency on the part of anyone else.
(multiple contacts) and fortunately and thanks to 18 or so _very_ hard working volunteers the response time has gone from weeks to hours (in most cases).
Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable
contribution. All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS
system, eventually.
Correct - it just takes time, and depending on the reason different amounts of time. (eg if you have 'BlueRockDove' or 'NewAgeOptIn' on your network there is currently and 'indefinite' aging time)
Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist,
for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_
requirements). I don't even know the operator thereof. Everything I've
said is based on published and publicly available information.
No, but you did a fine job of explaining it (best I have seen personally), thank you.
The original poster has already noted a contact has been made, and I will watch it with interest - and the poster may note at least one of the entries has probably been resolved already.
how do you justify asking me, a colo shop for example, to pay (it matters
not whom) to get address space delisted? i caused the spam source to be shut
down as soon as i learned of the incident, a shared hosting customer on one
of my customers' machines for example, and had no practical way of
preventing it from happening. in all respects, i've done all that could be
practically and realistically expected of me to deal with the problem, but i
can't pay $50xmessages to every blacklist operator's and their dog's chosen
beneficiary every time someone dodgy signs up with one of my customers. your
blacklists' 'customers' may not be aware of this issue, but you surely are,
so how is this not a violation of the public trust?
> What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was
> suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown
away)?
They don't decide. I do.
This is not factually true. The USPS has a Postal Inspection Service
that can intercept your mail for various reasons. Details are in
39 USC 3013. The quote below comes from a report on their activities
for the year ended March 31 2004. During that period there were 21
withholding mail orders issued.
---------quote begins-------
POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE
The Postal Service reports to the Office of Inspector General information
related to investigative activities designed to protect the public against
unscrupulous mailers perpetrating fraudulent schemes. The following
information summarizes the administrative and judicial actions initiated
and resolved during the reporting period. These actions include the
issuance of cease and desist orders directed to mailers, actions to
intercept payments fraudulently induced, and orders seeking to intercept
fraudulent mailings.
------quote ends----------
In operations of any sort, network or otherwise, it is
important to get the facts straight to ensure that you
are not acting on the basis of bogus information.
