[91710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS Contact
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Noel)
Thu Aug 10 04:29:27 2006
From: Noel <noel.butler@ausics.net>
To: Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>
Cc: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <44DA76F1.7010203@sorbs.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:28:35 +1000
X-MailScanner-Env-From: noel.butler@ausics.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
There is one very key point to make in this,
use of *any* RBL is up to individual networks, no one makes anyone use
them, and those that do must know and accept all risks involved when
dealing with DUL's, SORBS operates a zone 'just for vernom' as well,
just like spamcop and njabl and others, but if a network like many I can
name want to use the full coverage , that is up to us, we know the risks
and believe it does more good, EVERYTHING will have collateral damage
and we know and accept that.
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 09:59, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> Actually that's debatable - the SORBS DUHL is about IPs assigned to
> hosts/people/machines dynamically. We do not list addresses where the
> ISP have sent the list explictitly saying 'these are static hosts, but
> they are not allowed to send mail' - similarly we do list hosts in the
> DUHL where the ISP has said 'these are dynamic but we allow them to send
> mail' - it's about the people using the SORBS DUHL for their purposes,
> not for helping ISPs getting around the issue of whether to use SORBS as
> a replacement to port 25 blocking.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mat
