On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 07:52 -0400, John Peach wrote:
> > Right, so, how is THAT a false positive, it is a justifiable listing > > if they became part of the problem. > > > I never said it was a false positive. Just that it's a waste of time > trying to get delisted; we gave up with that years ago. > Really? No one I've met who actually requested delisting was ignored or refused, sure, a few years ago it was taking a few weeks to get out of it, but it got there in the end without pestering. A lot of people are just spreading FUD because of them reading the requirements (which werent requirements) and never bothering to ask fearing theyd have to pay, and IIRC, it was a charity not SORBS, probably a bad idea, sometimes the scare tactic can backfire, I believe the web page is updated (or will be soon) reflecting this. IMHO, it comes down to laziness of those admins not chasing up, what do you do when you get in spamcop, wait till your listing expires, get relisted, wait until it expires again (being a longer listing period). SORBS only gave me one headache many many years ago, it took no time to get it resolved, and they have been ultra reliable here, they are heavily used by Australian and New Zealand ISP's, probably of little consequence to Americans though.
