> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.butler <at> > > ausics.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко > > Костик wrote: > > > > > sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get > > blocked for several years and > > are not willing to delist b/c > > sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them. > > > > > That is complete > > FUD, yes, I know what their website says, but knowing > the people > > behind them I can assure you it has never been demanded, it > is a > > deterrent, a request to their ticketing system is all it takes to > > > get out, please don't fall for the mistruths by those who have been > > in > SORBS, infact, better to ask yourself why they were in there in > > the > first place. > ... because we have so-called educated > > professionals who fall for phishing scams on a regular basis, > > despite regular warnings about the same. > > > Right, so, how is THAT a false positive, it is a justifiable listing > if they became part of the problem.
See other posts. In this specific local situation those listings viewed as false positive. > I have an automated script that runs over all of our mail servers log > files daily searching for IP's that send to > known spamtrap addresses and also on my private server (this domain), > addresses that never existed, and can't exist (marked as 'baduser' in > our adduser scripts), those it finds are automatically entered into > our local DNSBL which is used by other Uni's, ISP's and corporations > over here, publicly accessible, but not advertised. I get a daily diff > so I see the new entries, but I don't review/host/whois them, its just > an interesting "count how many new entries" really and its typically 8 > to 15 a day, and, AFAIC, they can stay in there forever because they > are clearly miscreants. Supporting own BL is too much effort for many tasks.
