Also posted in NGs (spamcop)

Picked up from Arne Saknussemm's post in g.spam - news.grc.com

http://www.au.sorbs.net/

"It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent closure of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate the hosting contract. ..."

Not taken lightly at http://www.dnsbl.com/2009/06/sorbs-status-...r-for-sale.html

"My recommendation at this time is to cease using the various SORBS DNSBLs until and unless stable hosting is obtained by the list operator. ..."

With some further comments and qualifications.

- Some will cheer (if it comes to that) but SORBS is one of the BLs referenced by the parser:

dnsbl.njabl.org (2 checks)
cbl.abuseat.org
dnsbl.sorbs.net
accredit.habeas.com
plus.bondedsender.org
iadb.isipp.com

What the....

Why would they do this?

Did the university get a rather large donation from spammers?

SORBS was not everyone's favorite BL. It tended to be a bit aggressive and thereby victimized a lot of innocent mailers, some of whom are regularly on this forum. Search the forum for "SORBS" to see what gives. As you can see from Farelf's link, dnsbl.com gave them a "not recommended" some time back.

-- rick

Update: 1st August 2009 - SORBS is NOT closing. http://www.au.sorbs.net/


The parser has continued to reference SORBS throughout.

I have mixed feelings... I'm pleased that there's a continued effort to tackle spam but I certainly hope that the new owners of SORBS take a somewhat more helpful response to delisting IPs that have stopped spam flow.

It will be sometime before I would consider reintroducing SORBS into the dsnbls that I use.

Andrew

From my experience SORBS has been run by unprofessional, unfriendly and arrogant individuals.

Some time ago the mail server of one of Australia's largest ISPs was blocked. When I received some of my emails back I followed the instructions how to request SORBS to remove the block on the IP address. I should have never followed the SORBS instructions because I only received a threatening an offensive email back with false claims that I would be running a SMTP server myself to send spam. They threatened to force my ISP to cancel my internet account because I would be abusing their services although I didn't even have a clue how to setup a mail server, nor did I have the hardware or even the provision through the ISP.

When I contacted my ISP they requested me to not respond to the SORBS email because they were worried that their server would become permanently blocked.

Even if SORBS staff are volunteers, I consider it absolutely inappropriate to make false accusations and to threaten the ISP just because a customer followed the SORBS instructions in a returned email.

Thinking back, the whole thing might have been caused because I got one day a dynamic IP which had been previously used by a spammer but regardless of the circumstances, each case should be handled professionally without unreasonable threats to affected customers of an ISP.

Unfortunate. I must say I greatly prefer the SCBL model, where individual human beings and their revenge fantasies are pretty much out of the picture. You send enough spam, you get on the list. You stop sending it, you get back off again. You wanna know why you are on the list, they show you the facts.

-- rick

Second that!

Miss Betsy

Hard to argue against that from my impressions either, though mostly drawn from second-hand sources - 'uncompromising and combative' would be about the kindest paraphrasing I might offer though it's not my job or place to act as apologist. Let's hope a new dawn begins now/soon and the undoubted potential of SORBS can be fully realized without the 'distractions' - it is distractions like those that give spammers their oxygen.

Yes, the SpamCop BL operates with unequaled elegance and fairness yet comes in for its share of criticism too. As Rick (I think) and (certainly) numerous others have noted on more than one occasion, it takes more than one BL to make up an effective RBL set for filtering.