Re: OT: is sorbs.net sleeping ?

[Dominic Raferd]

On 09/04/2021 15:57, Rob McEwen wrote:

On 4/9/2021 10:34 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:

above ip is not listed yet, with inho is sign of no maintain at all anymore

So I noticed that this IP you mentioned is a heavily-listed IP that is currently listed on many DNSBLs, including many of the best and most reliable and accurate ones. (I think that was part of your point.) So you're complaining that SORBS isn't listed this one. Maybe you were providing this as a representative example, correct? So I guess you're saying that there are more like this?

But for the sake of clarity, let me just say that no DNSBLs should ever be judged too harshly for "false negatives" - no DNSBL has the exact same view of the worldwide email data - and each DNSBL's false positive prevention filters will always make SOME mistakes that cause "false negatives" - that's a very acceptable price to pay considering that no system can ever be perfect.

Low false positives AND overall catch-rates AND overall UNIQUE catch-rates (blocking stuff everyone else is still missing) - are all far more important metrics.

(you might be disappointed with SORBS in those areas too? - that's fine - I'm just trying to clarify that overly judging a DNSBL based on particular false negatives can be overly harsh and might miss the good things that a DNSBL has to offer)

That sounds reasonable. But my experience is that spamhaus RBLs (zen, zrd, dbl) have a zero false positive rate (or so low that I have never found one). IMHO if an email is matched by spamhaus it is the sender's big problem, not the recipient's. (And I have no connection to spamhaus...)