"Darren Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, SORBs are demanding $50 to remove the IP from the list. Their > comparison of speeding is something I find totally crazy.
It's definitely not blackmail and I don't think it's extortion either, but the developers viewed it as unreasonable and we generally don't use blacklists where the delisting policy is unreasonable.
Good point Dan.. I kind of have mixed feelings on the SORBS fine, but I'd agree it's neither blackmail nor extortion.
The only way on that list is if your server sent spam directly to one of the admins of SORBS or one of the spamtraps they operate. You don't get on that list via third-party report or testing. At that point, your system has been directly used in causing damage to their networks, and the negligence of the admin turning on webmail facilitated the damages.
I really do think that at some level administrators of open relays should be liable for at least some of the damages they've inadvertently caused through their negligence. Let's face it, there's lots of legal situations where failure to properly secure something dangerous can lead to you being held liable for a portion of the damages, or even subject to criminal charges.
Wether $50 is a reasonable amount of damages or I'm not sure, and I can't say I 100% support the method, but I'd have to agree the concept isn't too far out in left field. They aren't vigilante fining people for damaged done to others, they're holding people liable for damages directly done to themselves. I've got slightly mixed feelings about the method of complaint, but I can't say they have no basis for requesting compensation.
On the other hand as SA's mass-check testing has shown, this particular list isn't very accurate.
It's an interesting concept, but the community benefits of the list aren't really there, so it's not a very useful list to use as a general DNSBL.
