From owner-nanog@merit.edu Tue Mar 15 11:59:40 2005 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:21 -0800 From: Micah McNelly <micah@style.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: sorbs.net
Nanog,
Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to someone ASAP. No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia. I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators group. SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion. if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you. *THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their system. Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site. it works reliably. Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to urgency on the part of anyone else. Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable contribution. All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS system, eventually. Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist, for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_ requirements). I don't even know the operator thereof. Everything I've said is based on published and publicly available information.
Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs at some level. Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery? What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)? /m Robert Bonomi wrote:
From owner-nanog@merit.edu Tue Mar 15 11:59:40 2005 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:21 -0800 From: Micah McNelly <micah@style.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: sorbs.net
Nanog,
Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to someone ASAP. No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators group.
SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion. if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you. *THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their system.
Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site. it works reliably. Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to urgency on the part of anyone else.
Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable contribution. All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS system, eventually.
Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist, for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_ requirements). I don't even know the operator thereof. Everything I've said is based on published and publicly available information.
-- /m "I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Micah McNelly wrote:
Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs at some level. Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery? What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
/m
Well, anyone remember the Comstock Act? But seriously, the analogy here is a bit false. It would be like the recipient of the mail signed up to use a service that inspected their mail for them, and made the decisions you are describing. You can argue that signing up for such a service is silly, wrong headed, ill informed and results in unintended consequences. But you cannot argue that it is government censorship. +------------------------- + Dave Dennis + Seattle, WA + dmd@speakeasy.org + http://www.dmdennis.com +-------------------------
This is straying a bit far from network operations, and would probably be better discussed elsewhere. -Steve On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Dave Dennis wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Micah McNelly wrote:
Actually I got a response quickly from a list member who represent sorbs at some level. Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery? What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
/m
Well, anyone remember the Comstock Act?
But seriously, the analogy here is a bit false. It would be like the recipient of the mail signed up to use a service that inspected their mail for them, and made the decisions you are describing.
You can argue that signing up for such a service is silly, wrong headed, ill informed and results in unintended consequences. But you cannot argue that it is government censorship.
+------------------------- + Dave Dennis + Seattle, WA + dmd@speakeasy.org + http://www.dmdennis.com +-------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gibbard scg@gibbard.org +1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg +1 510 528-1035 (home)
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Micah McNelly wrote:
Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery?
Yes. My mailbox. My computer. My private property. My rules.
What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
They don't decide. I do. -Dan
What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
They don't decide. I do.
This is not factually true. The USPS has a Postal Inspection Service that can intercept your mail for various reasons. Details are in 39 USC 3013. The quote below comes from a report on their activities for the year ended March 31 2004. During that period there were 21 withholding mail orders issued. ---------quote begins------- POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE The Postal Service reports to the Office of Inspector General information related to investigative activities designed to protect the public against unscrupulous mailers perpetrating fraudulent schemes. The following information summarizes the administrative and judicial actions initiated and resolved during the reporting period. These actions include the issuance of cease and desist orders directed to mailers, actions to intercept payments fraudulently induced, and orders seeking to intercept fraudulent mailings. ------quote ends---------- In operations of any sort, network or otherwise, it is important to get the facts straight to ensure that you are not acting on the basis of bogus information. --Michael Dillon
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
They don't decide. I do.
This is not factually true. The USPS has a Postal Inspection Service that can intercept your mail for various reasons. Details are in 39 USC 3013. The quote below comes from a report on their activities for the year ended March 31 2004. During that period there were 21 withholding mail orders issued.
OK, they decide, for extremely small values of decide. 21 withholding mail orders vs. how many trillions of items handled? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Micah McNelly wrote:
Do you really think opinion has a place in mail delivery?
Yes. For instance, you might be lucky enough to live somewhere where the the local default postal service actually obeys the 'No junk mail' sticker on your letterbox and only delivers cards and bills.
What if the USPS decided any magazine you subscribed to was suddenly unfit for delivery and decided it should blocked (thrown away)?
Sorry. The mechanics of Internet Mail delivery are more like inter-company couriers, with each company (mail server) having its own set of bonded couriers to deliver packages to remote companies. There is no lowest-common-denominator delivery service such as the USPS in Internet terms. Blacklists, in the company courier terms, are the equivilant of packages being delivered to (your company's) reception by a courier, and your company refusing to accept said packages because they do not meet with the company's guidelines (eg, sending company has a bad credit rating, as reported by the BadCreditAgency Inc). The other company's courier must then take the package back and perhaps try another office of your company. --==-- Bruce.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
Note that the netblock that the primary SORBS server is in is currently having routing hiccups between connect.com.au and netgate.nz, leaving some destinations unreachable except via proxies.
SORBS -- like _any_ other blocklist -- is simply an expression of opinion. if you feel that "somebody" is 'wrongly' blocking mail because of a SORBS listing, your _first_ step should be to contact *that* party, and request that either (a) they stop using SORBS, or (b) that they 'whitelist' you. *THEY* are the ones that made the decision to block your mail to their system.
Come on, that's just nonsense. If the New York Times publishes a front page article about how you're an idiot, should you contact each individual person who reads the article and try to convince them you're not? Or should you try to convince the New York Times that they're incorrect and should publish a correction? DS
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Anyone on the list involved with this project? I need to speak to someone ASAP. No, I am not going to pay your ridiculous fine.
SORBS is a one-man operation out of Australia.
Not quite, though it is owned by me.
I really doubt that he participates in the NORTH AMERICAN network operators group.
erm, no ;-)
Contact means for SORBS *is* provided on the web-site. it works reliably. Be advised, however, that a 'need' on your part does not translate to urgency on the part of anyone else.
(multiple contacts) and fortunately and thanks to 18 or so _very_ hard working volunteers the response time has gone from weeks to hours (in most cases).
Note: *Nobody*, not even SORBS, says you 'have to' make that charitable contribution. All the 'spam' listings _do_ "age off" the SORBS system, eventually.
Correct - it just takes time, and depending on the reason different amounts of time. (eg if you have 'BlueRockDove' or 'NewAgeOptIn' on your network there is currently and 'indefinite' aging time)
Caveat: I have nothing to do with SORBS. I don't use it -- or *any* blocklist, for that matter -- myself (I use other means that are better suited for _my_ requirements). I don't even know the operator thereof. Everything I've said is based on published and publicly available information.
No, but you did a fine job of explaining it (best I have seen personally), thank you. The original poster has already noted a contact has been made, and I will watch it with interest - and the poster may note at least one of the entries has probably been resolved already. Regards, Mat
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Sullivan" <matthew@sorbs.net> To: "Robert Bonomi" <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:07 PM Subject: Re: sorbs.net
The original poster has already noted a contact has been made, and I will watch it with interest - and the poster may note at least one of the entries has probably been resolved already.
how do you justify asking me, a colo shop for example, to pay (it matters not whom) to get address space delisted? i caused the spam source to be shut down as soon as i learned of the incident, a shared hosting customer on one of my customers' machines for example, and had no practical way of preventing it from happening. in all respects, i've done all that could be practically and realistically expected of me to deal with the problem, but i can't pay $50xmessages to every blacklist operator's and their dog's chosen beneficiary every time someone dodgy signs up with one of my customers. your blacklists' 'customers' may not be aware of this issue, but you surely are, so how is this not a violation of the public trust? -p
participants (11)
-
Bruce Campbell -
Dan Hollis -
Dave Dennis -
David Schwartz -
Jay Hennigan -
Matthew Sullivan -
Micah McNelly -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Paul G -
Robert Bonomi -
Steve Gibbard