It does makes sense that they would list unused/unowned netblocks in APNIC in their database probably because of the probability that such blocks would get assigned to an ISP which more than likely offer it up as dynamic. I haven't looked there in a while but I thought it explained conditions for Ips and netblocks to be in the DUL database and I thought it said it was because of published info by the ISP as well as reverse lookup records. Over the years of my use of SORBS_DUL, I've seen maybe a dozen or so .coms that had their static ISP assigned address in SURBS_DUL because of their PTR records. Once they contacted their ISP changed their PTR records so that it didn't look dynamic (IP embedded), SORBS removed the IP from the DUL database.
-----Original Message----- From: James Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:57 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: SORBS_DUL Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's practically useless and if you are an unfortunate who ends up incorrectly listed in it, good luck getting off it! Case at hand, the company I work for purchased a /19 address block directly from APNIC before anyone else had it (IOW, we were the first users of that block). We now have both our external mail IP's listed in SORBS_DUL despite the fact the /24 they belong to, and the /24's on either side have NEVER been part of a dynamic pool. SORBS refuse to delist them as our MX records are different to these outgoing mail servers! FFS - we run managed services for a number of ISP's why the hell would we *want* to munge all our inbound and outbound mail through the same IP's?!? Seriously folks, can we make SORBS_DUL optional and not "on by default" in the general distribution? Cheers, James
