nanog mailing list archives
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
From: Michelle Sullivan <matthew () sorbs net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:49:09 +0100
Ken Chase wrote:
Fair enough, but it wasnt just me. I have the customer who submitted his own tickets as well, as well as NAC.net who has admins (an email admin, actually), who seems to know his way around RBLs and the current state/reputation/happenings in the spam/RBL/mail world. Customer has posted these tickets: 260573, 260695, 261026, 261204, 261325, 261377, 261624
260573 - waiting for a response from a SORBS admin (originally requested the /22, but really only meant to request a /32) 260695 - is 260573 261026 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host) 261204 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host) 261325 - waiting for response from the requestor (and is now merged with 260695 as it's the same host) 261377 - had no information about any ticket and was logged to the lowest priority queue, and is actually the same as the above from the same requestor. 261624 - waiting for response from the requestor (and 260573, 260695, 261026, 261204, 261325, 261377 are all merged into it as then are all for the same host.)
and the last ticket I posted was from NAC's admin, who received and acted on replies too.
The NAC admin had not replied to the ticket as I stated previously.
That makes 3 semi-clued people who found your system somewhat confusing (+1 interested party @coplanar = 4). The ironic thing is that if you make it any clearer, spammers may also figure out how to clear their networks easily as well from your list. :/ So I can see the reason for not doing so to some extent.
Well 3 people have ignored the last 2 sentences... so please tell me what is unclear in them? The only correct response was in 260573 when someone responded to the robot response. For the onlookers, please note that the SORBS stated reply time has been complied with in all cases, and had the other tickets not been logged for the same issue by the same requestor it would have been answered by today to stay in that response time compliance.
Michelle
Current thread:
- Re: SORBS on autopilot?, (continued)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? William Herrin (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Larry Sheldon (Jan 15)
- Bad Support Bots (was: SORBS on autopilot?) Michael Thomas (Jan 15)
- Re: Bad Support Bots William Hamilton (Jan 15)
- Re: Bad Support Bots Michael Thomas (Jan 15)
- Re: excessive automation bmanning (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Ken Chase (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? paul (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Michelle Sullivan (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? paul (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Michelle Sullivan (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jon Lewis (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Michelle Sullivan (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Jed Smith (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Leo Bicknell (Jan 15)
- Re: SORBS on autopilot? Michelle Sullivan (Jan 15)
- um... human generated requests bmanning (Jan 15)
- RE: um... human generated requests Nathan Eisenberg (Jan 15)