Hello, Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later. Thanks again, Chris
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?! Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes! Paul (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?! Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes!
Paul (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
Yeah +1 to that. What we need an RBL that lists any mail server that USES sorbs for filtering decisions. Mike-
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?! Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes!
Paul (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
Yeah +1 to that. What we need an RBL that lists any mail server that USES sorbs for filtering decisions.
Cut GFI a little slack, at least for a few more weeks. They seem to have made some decent decisions w.r.t. SORBS very recently and it's likely that things will be improving, at least as far as SORBS policies and support responsiveness are concerned. They may yet screw it up, but give them a chance to demonstrate otherwise. Cheers, Steve
+1 They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Atkins" <steve@blighty.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2011 9:56:20 AM Subject: Re: SORBS contact? On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?! Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes!
Paul (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
Yeah +1 to that. What we need an RBL that lists any mail server that USES sorbs for filtering decisions.
Cut GFI a little slack, at least for a few more weeks. They seem to have made some decent decisions w.r.t. SORBS very recently and it's likely that things will be improving, at least as far as SORBS policies and support responsiveness are concerned. They may yet screw it up, but give them a chance to demonstrate otherwise. Cheers, Steve
On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.
I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad thing. They might do better by rebranding though. SORBS has one heck of an amount of negative karma for them to get past.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Atkins"<steve@blighty.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 23 March, 2011 9:56:20 AM Subject: Re: SORBS contact?
On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:14 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 09:07 AM, Chris Conn wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to all that answered, all helpful info. Surprisingly minutes after my Nanog post, a couple of my tickets saw action and the /24 was finally removed a short while later.
Thanks again,
Chris
Woah... *collapses on the floor in shock* SORBS actually did something?! Quick, buy a lottery ticket before your luck changes!
Paul (one of many fed up of dealing with SORBS)
Yeah +1 to that. What we need an RBL that lists any mail server that USES sorbs for filtering decisions. Cut GFI a little slack, at least for a few more weeks.
They seem to have made some decent decisions w.r.t. SORBS very recently and it's likely that things will be improving, at least as far as SORBS policies and support responsiveness are concerned.
They may yet screw it up, but give them a chance to demonstrate otherwise.
Cheers, Steve
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.
I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad thing. They might do better by rebranding though. SORBS has one heck of an amount of negative karma for them to get past.
Competently managed and with even a modicum of responsiveness, SORBS could be redeemed. But yeah, they should get a new name, SORBS is tainted in my book.
On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Mike wrote:
On 03/22/2011 03:58 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 03/22/2011 12:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
+1
They know the challenges, aware of the issues and I have seen some progress.
I'm glad to hear that, one less extortion racket on the 'net is no bad thing. They might do better by rebranding though. SORBS has one heck of an amount of negative karma for them to get past.
Competently managed and with even a modicum of responsiveness, SORBS could be redeemed. But yeah, they should get a new name, SORBS is tainted in my book.
SORBS is tainted worldwide. You should hear the the laughing and negative comments about them at MAAWG and at other conferences let alone all the users that dumped them and all the legit ISPs that they held for ransom. If they have gotten rid of Michelle and have gotten new management and gotten a new attitude they should run that up the flag pole so that everyone will know. And, I agree they need to rebrand if they are really dedicated to a change in operations. Then, they face the long term to get back their reputation.
participants (6)
-
Chris Conn -
Franck Martin -
Mike -
Paul Graydon -
Steve Atkins -
TR Shaw