SORBS still listing Telecom static IPs as dynamic...
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (-
which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process
of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long
this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke,
with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just
far far far too many false positives... :-(
Paul.
-----Original Message-----
From: System Administrator
Sent: Thursday, 18 May 2006 15:58
To: <customer>
Subject: Undeliverable:RE: <mail subject>
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: RE: <mail subject>
Sent: 18/05/2006 15:58
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
Robert Reid on 18/05/2006 15:58
You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For
assistance, contact your system administrator.
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Inspire Net IPs too... just got another SORBS induced bounce from a Telecom's mail server. Kind of funny that Telecom uses SORBS after the ORBS debacle though. Someone should tell Alan Brown (I can't, because he uses SORBS too so messages to him bounce). -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha www.computerworld.co.nz
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:46, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Inspire Net IPs too... just got another SORBS induced bounce from a Telecom's mail server.
Kind of funny that Telecom uses SORBS after the ORBS debacle though. Someone should tell Alan Brown (I can't, because he uses SORBS too so messages to him bounce).
This is a me too post (Ihug static) I discovered this when I went to post on NZLUG mailing list (Hint: NZLUG admins or people with power thereof) Im a newbie at this so what are my options? Ive emailed SORBS and pointed out my rdns has the word static in it, and they werent helpful _at all_, and Ive spoken to IHUG's residential helpdesk (It was just a little over their heads), I emailed the SORBS induced bounces to support(a)ihug.net.nz and complaints(a)ihug.net.nz which got me the reassuring automated responses, and nothing else.
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Shane wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:46, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Inspire Net IPs too... just got another SORBS induced bounce from a Telecom's mail server.
Kind of funny that Telecom uses SORBS after the ORBS debacle though. Someone should tell Alan Brown (I can't, because he uses SORBS too so messages to him bounce).
This is a me too post (Ihug static) I discovered this when I went to post on NZLUG mailing list (Hint: NZLUG admins or people with power thereof) Im a newbie at this so what are my options? Ive emailed SORBS and pointed out my rdns has the word static in it, and they werent helpful _at all_, and Ive spoken to IHUG's residential helpdesk (It was just a little over their heads), I emailed the SORBS induced bounces to support(a)ihug.net.nz and complaints(a)ihug.net.nz which got me the reassuring automated responses, and nothing else.
If you or anyone else is having problems with NZLUG you can drop me a line offlist, I help administer the list and can probably sort it or find someone who can. Mark.
On Thursday 18 May 2006 19:28, Mark Foster wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Shane wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:46, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Inspire Net IPs too... just got another SORBS induced bounce from a Telecom's mail server.
Kind of funny that Telecom uses SORBS after the ORBS debacle though. Someone should tell Alan Brown (I can't, because he uses SORBS too so messages to him bounce).
This is a me too post (Ihug static) I discovered this when I went to post on NZLUG mailing list (Hint: NZLUG admins or people with power thereof) Im a newbie at this so what are my options? Ive emailed SORBS and pointed out my rdns has the word static in it, and they werent helpful _at all_, and Ive spoken to IHUG's residential helpdesk (It was just a little over their heads), I emailed the SORBS induced bounces to support(a)ihug.net.nz and complaints(a)ihug.net.nz which got me the reassuring automated responses, and nothing else.
If you or anyone else is having problems with NZLUG you can drop me a line offlist, I help administer the list and can probably sort it or find someone who can.
Mark.
Well Ive sent mail to you twice about the issue, only to see in a later post you are using SORBS to block mail yourself Talk about circular dependencies :-)
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Paul.
One would certainly wonder why any sane NZ ISP would use SORBS !
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Tony Wicks wrote:
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Paul.
One would certainly wonder why any sane NZ ISP would use SORBS !
Doesn't this come back to the 'use them for scoring, but don't block just coz they say so' ?? (Didn't someone say this recently???) Course, we can't speak for overseas ISPs and their levels of sanity, and the point could be made that _anyone_ who uses SORBS to drop email is causing a potential disruption... So the scale obviously depends on the 'who'. (and I have to admitt i'm not one to talk; I use the SORBS Dynamic IP Lists myself. Noone has yet complained.... ) Mark.
One would wonder why any sane mail admin wouldnt pull data from as many sources as possible when deciding on how to score spam.
Sure, but surely there has to be some measure of accuracy involved ? I mean SORBS is about as accurate as choosing every even IP address on Monday and public holidays, every odd one on every other day. It's just not even close to being what it is supposed to be billed as.
Tony Wicks wrote:
Sure, but surely there has to be some measure of accuracy involved ? I mean SORBS is about as accurate as choosing every even IP address on Monday and public holidays, every odd one on every other day.
Sure, but it still works better than say, sitting around doing nothing with ya thumb in ya arse. Id be interested to know. Do you use SORBS? Or is your judgement of them based on second hard information?
Jeremy Brooking wrote:
One would wonder why any sane mail admin wouldnt pull data from as many sources as possible when deciding on how to score spam.
No matter how inaccurate those sources may be ? How many ISPs use a naming convention for their rDNS which clearly differentiates static from dynamic address space ? I could be wrong here, but from my experience, not many. Considering this is one of the methods SORBS used to identify suitable netblocks for the DUHL, its no wonder so many static ranges are listed. And anyway, who wants to deal with people who resort to extortion (http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/spamdb.shtml). -- Andrew
Andrew Redgwell wrote:
Jeremy Brooking wrote:
One would wonder why any sane mail admin wouldnt pull data from as many sources as possible when deciding on how to score spam.
No matter how inaccurate those sources may be ?
Id be interested in seeing where you get this information regarding the accuracy of sorbs dul list? Or is it a simple case of "Buhu I got on their list once, they must be totally innacurate!" ?
How many ISPs use a naming convention for their rDNS which clearly differentiates static from dynamic address space ? I could be wrong here, but from my experience, not many.
So a number of ISPs dont update their rdns often, this is the fault of sorbs how?
Considering this is one of the methods SORBS used to identify suitable netblocks for the DUHL, its no wonder so many static ranges are listed.
And being listed alone isnt enough to get your mail blocks by most peoples setups. As others have mentioned using sorbs dul list to add weight to any tagging can be, and in my experience is a very effective way of helping combat spam. The flaw isnt in their information, its in how the information they provide is used. PS: Whitelisting isnt that hard.
Jeremy Brooking wrote:
Id be interested in seeing where you get this information regarding the accuracy of sorbs dul list?
It's not so much that they are inaccurate, as that they are woefully out of date, If they are going to publish a blacklist, then they have a responsibility to keep it current.
So a number of ISPs dont update their rdns often, this is the fault of sorbs how?
The rdns info they are currently using to block a number of our address ranges date back to november 2005. -- Bruce Harding Inspire Net Ltd Phone : 06 357 8559 Fax : 06 353 1154 Mobile : 021 519 024
Bruce Harding wrote:
It's not so much that they are inaccurate, as that they are woefully out of date, If they are going to publish a blacklist, then they have a responsibility to keep it current.
I understand this. But they do accurately list a phenominal number of spam sources. From my experience, they get far more right than they get wrong, which is why i still believe, weighting your tagging based on their information is still better than not using them at all. Would I use then as the only source? No. Would I take what they publish as gospel? No. But I will take on board the information they publish.
So a number of ISPs dont update their rdns often, this is the fault of sorbs how?
The rdns info they are currently using to block a number of our address ranges date back to november 2005.
I take back that comment then :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Redgwell"
Considering this is one of the methods SORBS used to identify suitable netblocks for the DUHL, its no wonder so many static ranges are listed.
And anyway, who wants to deal with people who resort to extortion (http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/spamdb.shtml).
Please do get your facts straight. The donation requirement is only applicable to proven spam sources. Not the DUHL or any of the other service/state-related listings. Besides which, how on earth can you justify a charitable donation to CCF, Red Cross or any other service _of your own choice_ extortion? AYJ
TreeNet Admin wrote:
Please do get your facts straight. The donation requirement is only applicable to proven spam sources. Not the DUHL or any of the other service/state-related listings.
Hence my link to the spamdb, and not to the DUHL. :roll:
Besides which, how on earth can you justify a charitable donation to CCF, Red Cross or any other service _of your own choice_ extortion?
Do I get to put the money back in my pocket ? No ? Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of extortion; heres a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extortion -- Andrew PS - Thunderbird thinks this thread is trash.
On 19/05/06, Andrew Redgwell
Hence my link to the spamdb, and not to the DUHL. :roll:
Besides which, how on earth can you justify a charitable donation to CCF, Red Cross or any other service _of your own choice_ extortion?
Do I get to put the money back in my pocket ? No ? Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of extortion; heres a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extortion
1. The act or an instance of extorting. 2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage. 3. An excessive or exorbitant charge. 4. Something extorted. So either 50 bucks is 'exorbitant', or someone elected Matt King of the Internet when I wasn't looking. Inquiring minds would like to know.
That definition of extortion is the American definition. I argue that as
this is mailing list is predominantly non-American, we should be using the
correct definition.
extort
/ikstort/
. verb obtain by force, threats, or other unfair means.
- DERIVATIVES extorter noun extortion noun extortioner noun extortionist
noun extortive adjective.
- ORIGIN Latin extorquere, from torquere 'twist'.
Please don't use American English. Won't someone please think of the
children!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Riden [mailto:jamesr(a)europe.com]
Sent: Friday, 19 May 2006 8:54 p.m.
To: Andrew Redgwell
Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] SORBS still listing Telecom static IPs as dynamic...
On 19/05/06, Andrew Redgwell
Hence my link to the spamdb, and not to the DUHL. :roll:
Besides which, how on earth can you justify a charitable donation to CCF, > Red Cross or any other service _of your own choice_ extortion?
Do I get to put the money back in my pocket ? No ? Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of extortion; heres a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extortion
1. The act or an instance of extorting. 2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage. 3. An excessive or exorbitant charge. 4. Something extorted. So either 50 bucks is 'exorbitant', or someone elected Matt King of the Internet when I wasn't looking. Inquiring minds would like to know. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Could we please stop this thread, it is now out of the AUP
of this list and is becoming flamebait.
This is one of those grey subject where there will always
be disagreements.
Thanks.
jfp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Francois Pirus
On 18/05/06, Tony Wicks
Paul Adshead wrote:
It appears that SORBS are atill listing Telecom static IP ranges (- which my address is in,) as dynamic ranges. Wasn't this in the process of being fixed weeks/months ago? Does anyone have any ideas on how long this is going to be until it's resolved?
The whole SORBS situation over the past months is becoming a total joke, with mail admins I know turning off their use of SORBS - there is just far far far too many false positives... :-(
Paul.
One would certainly wonder why any sane NZ ISP would use SORBS !
SORBS has a couple of different zones, so I assume you mean the dynamic space list. The other zones - http.dnsbl.sorbs.net, socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net, misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net, smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net, web.dnsbl.sorbs.net, spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net, zombie.dnsbl.sorbs.net, badconf.rhsbl.sorbs.net and nomail.rhsbl.sorbs.net - are very useful. Personally, I don't think that dul.sorbs.net is a good list for rejecting mail, but it's still reasonable for scoring mail. Anyway, I think admins should probably be whitelisting servers they particularly want mail from, e.g. scoring up NZ IPs. I seem to recall that XTRA has made it into other RBLs in the past, hasn't it? cheers, Jamie -- Jamie Riden / jamesr(a)europe.com / jamie.riden(a)computer.org NZ Honeynet project - http://www.nz-honeynet.org/
participants (13)
-
Andrew Redgwell -
Bruce Harding -
Jamie Riden -
Jean-Francois Pirus -
Jeremy Brooking -
Juha Saarinen -
Mark Foster -
Oscars Air -
Paul Adshead -
Shane -
Tony Wicks -
TreeNet Admin -
Will Steele