nanog mailing list archives
Re: SORBS contact?
From: TR Shaw <tshaw () oitc com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:16:28 -0400
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.
Current thread:
- Re: SORBS contact?, (continued)
- Re: SORBS contact? Ken Chase (Mar 21)
- Re: SORBS contact? Rich Kulawiec (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Alexander Maassen (Mar 23)
- Re: SORBS contact? Chris Conn (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Paul Graydon (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Mike (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Steve Atkins (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Franck Martin (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Paul Graydon (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Mike (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? TR Shaw (Mar 22)
- Re: SORBS contact? Paul Graydon (Mar 22)