[151946] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: SORBS?!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Drew Weaver)
Fri Apr 6 09:56:11 2012
From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>
To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:55:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <30556.1333720091@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "'goemon@anime.net'" <goemon@anime.net>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That is again, not true.
Senderbase's listings don't correlate to any public information so it's pre=
tty much impossible to pro-actively protect ourselves from having our IPs s=
et to poor.
I.e. when Senderbase assigns IPs to poor, those same IPs aren't listed on a=
ny RBLs or anything.
They operate in a vacuum where there is no visibility into why they do anyt=
hing. Unlike organizations like Spamhaus where you know exactly why IPs are=
listed.
Thanks,
-Drew
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]=20
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'goemon@anime.net'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SORBS?!
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:31:47 -0400, Drew Weaver said:
> That's just not true, we would much rather be notified of something=20
> that a reputation list finds objectionable and take it down ourselves=20
> than have Senderbase set a poor reputation on dozens of IaaS customers.
If it was industry-wide standard practice that just notifying a provider re=
sulted in something being done, we'd not need things like Senderbase, which=
is after all basically a list of people who don't take action when notifie=
d...
