Re: SORBS Contact

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Matthew Sullivan wrote:

> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >     Actually there can be false positive.  ISP's
> >     who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks
> >     which have the qualification that the ISP is
> >     also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
> >     allow email from the block but the ISP's
> >     policy explicitly allows email to be sent.
> >   
>
> Actually that's debatable - the SORBS DUHL is about IPs assigned to 
> hosts/people/machines dynamically.  We do not list addresses where the 
> ISP have sent the list explictitly saying 'these are static hosts, but 
> they are not allowed to send mail' - similarly we do list hosts in the 
> DUHL where the ISP has said 'these are dynamic but we allow them to send 
> mail' - it's about the people using the SORBS DUHL for their purposes, 
> not for helping ISPs getting around the issue of whether to use SORBS as 
> a replacement to port 25 blocking.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mat

This point in the thread seems as good as any to toss my two cents in.

Matthew, I use your list. I am very appreciative of the efforts you 
expend on it since those translate directly into less efforts expended 
on my part. You have my vote. Keep up the good things that you do.

This goes as well to the other DNSBL's, such as AHBL operators.

I have had no real issues removing systems that wandered "accidentally" 
into sorbs.

For those who cant tolerate any "false positives" from DNSBL.

I recommend that the whitelisting procedure be as easy as the 
blacklisting procedure -- that means running a DNSWL. Make it as easy as 
moving email from one imap folder to another to process whitelisting. 
Include instructions in your SMTP errors. Educate your support staff.

Joe