Re: SORBS_DUL

[James Gray]

Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:

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

Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

I don't find it useless. It works quite well

On 26.03.08 08:23, James Gray wrote:

Unless you receive mail from any of our customers.

Actually I don't - they are listed in SORBS DUL...

Precisely my point. You incorrectly reject their mail as SORBS' tell you it's a dynamic IP. They aren't, and never have been, dynamically allocated to anyone.

while no RFC forces setting of a TTL, some of them advise values ~1 day or
more for records that do not change that often. Having TTL 3600 for normal
records imho indicates just what SORBS points out at. I wouldn't trust you
too.

See my other post today. The TTL's were dropped recently (January 2008) to accommodate the move of equipment/IP/etc from one co-lo to another. They are now back up to more "normal" values. The blocks that have been listed have never, and will never be used in any dynamic addressing scheme, yet were listed anyway - according to you, because of short TTL's. As I have stated, the TTL's were dropped recently and restored back recently but the SORBS listing was made in 2006 - long before I started with this company and long before the recent co-lo move.

Why? Can you remove them from the SORBS_DUL? No, then it's not really relevant then is it ;)

I was trying to help you find the real problem. If you don't want help, stop
bitching.

I didn't ASK FOR HELP! I asked what people's thoughts were on keeping a list like SORBS_DUL in the base/default spamassassin rules. I'm quite capable of fixing the mess I inherited.

I have seen more requests here to stop using some blacklists because of the
requestor was unable to understand something. I think this is just another
case...

You know nothing about me. You assume I engineered the mess that is the DNS system I'm currently unravelling. I didn't. It was a dog's breakfast when I started and I'm slowly sorting the mess out.

If you tried using their support forum to delist IPs that did not meet their
delisting criteria, I don't wonder if they reject it without providing
(other) reason.

https://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/supportreq.shtml

Forum? Or support request page? People keep referring to this nebulous "SORBS support forum"....I only see their website:

using sorbs is quite efficient, the scoress say it all. If you (and other
ISP's DNS admins) were able to configure DNS properly, they would be even
more efficient without false positives.

Peace,

James

I am perfectly capable of configuring DNS. In fact over the last 15 years or so that I've been doing DNS/MTA admin on Unix-based systems, a lot of my work as a contractor and as an incumbent admin is fixing messes left by previous admins. I'm currently stuck with a /19, /20 and a few stand-alone class-C's that are all a complete debacle. It's odd that other lists have automatically, and rapidly de-listed the odd IP here and there, without me needing to jump through hoops. SORBS make life hard for people to be de-listed: it's their idea of how DNS/MTA's should be managed, or you can talk to the virtual hand. That is my beef. Why are you so adamant about defending them? There are plenty of other (better IMHO) RBL's that are far more effective in filtering spam and other nasties.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature