nanog mailing list archives
Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:11:12 -0400
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:35:11 PDT, iHate SORBS said:
I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes.
You *do* realize your beef isn't with SORBS, it's with the mail operators that are using that as part of their input when deciding whether or not to accept mail, right? And they'll probably continue using it, because they're not the ones who feel the pain of being listed incorrectly. That won't change unless you can make a clear and logical business case of why using SORBS is counter-productive for *them*. That probably will mean that you have to demonstrate that your mail (and all the other SORBS false-positives) is worth more to their organization than the benefits they get from using SORBS (namely, a reduction in the amount of abusive mail they get). Unfortunately, unless you're trying to e-mail them a purchase order for an amount that's bigger than their anti-abuse team's budget, that probably will be a hard case to make. Further discussion is probably better suited for mailops or spam-l.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Network Operators Unite Against SORBS iHate SORBS (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS D'Arcy J.M. Cain (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Andrew Kirch (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Scott Howard (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Bret Clark (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS John Adams (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 12)
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Ken Chase (Oct 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Network Operators Unite Against SORBS Brielle Bruns (Oct 12)