Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tarabyte

False listings with SORBS DUHL

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

Matthew Sullivan absolutely refuses to remove my IP block from the SORBS DUHL, even with my ISP requesting the removal.

The IP block in question is:

216.224.234.0/24

All of the IP addresses have valid RDNS entries with the word "static" in them.

The end-user removal request tool only lets you submit one IP address at a time. The helpdesk system says it takes up to 28 days to be removed for larger blocks than one IP.

Therefore, I had my support rep submit one request at a time for each IP on my c-class block.

At first the IPs were removed from the block. But then suddenly Matthew Sullivan got angry and decided it was a "ticket flood" and banned her from the system.

At this point, I went to my ISP and had them do an ISP removal request; Matthew again refused to remove the listing from my ISP's request.

These IP addresses are VALID, static, not Dynamic, with correct RDNS entries that include the word 'static' in them.

When my ISP issued a request, instead of taking the request seriously, Matthew Sullivan chose to add my ISP's unrelated static IP blocks to his DUHL as well:

216.224.233.0/24

216.224.235.0/24

I'm pretty upset that Matthew Sullivan won't follow his own policies for removal at:

http://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml

I am also really confused why SORBS DUHL has any sort of authority whatsoever when it is clear that Matthew Sullivan doesn't mind lying to the world that a block is dynamic when it is clearly static because he has a personal vendetta with someone.

I mean there are places like SenderBase.org run by IronPort that take the SORBS DUHL seriously, and they show my new IP block as having an RBL listing over this.

Matthew insists on listing my valid static IPs -- and furthermore additionally listing the static IPs of my ISP, as dynamic addresses -- in an effort to abuse his power as a blacklist owner.

Apparently Matthew is under the impression that I'm spamming, even though he has nothing with which to make this claim other than an APEWS listing. As far as I know, Matthew is the only one who takes APEWS seriously, and I've heard that they will permanently list a /17 block for receiving a single email from a single IP address to one of their spamtraps. It makes me wonder if Matthew is anonymously behind APEWS.

I only bring this up because he is using the APEWS listing as justification to not remove my IP block from the DUHL.

But even then this really has nothing to do with spam, as there are plenty of spam blacklists out there, and if I was actually spamming I'd be listed on real IP blacklists and SORBS DUHL would be of no concern to me.

Long story short: this has to do with being listed as a dynamic IP block, and being refused de-listing because Matthew Sullivan took it personally that my employee submitted 255 tickets through his system.

Apparently Matthew is under the impression that anyone who runs an email service is by default a spammer, so he is within his rights to lie to the world about a static IP block being dynamic. And he is also under the impression that my ISP is somehow related to me other than providing my service, therefore he is discriminating against them also and now publishing their static IP blocks as dynamic.

I don't know if Matthew cares about his reputation or not, but I am ready to start contacting IronPort, 1and1, and anyone else who takes SORBS DUHL seriously and informing them that Matthew does not in fact honor his own publicly-listed policies. He is abusing his power and needs to be exposed.

I am open for suggestion on what I can do to resolve this matter.

Thank you,

Tara Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't comment on your interaction with the guys at SORBS. I imagine, though, that your company's website might make them a little suspicious of your motives. I see that Stress-Free Technologies is in the Email Marketing business.

You speak about:

Our proprietary closed-loop, permission-based email marketing system helps you take advantage of the most cost-effective advertising solution currently available.

And offer:

High-Volume Delivery: Send up to one million messages per month with our autoresponder solutions.

Opt-in Lead Generation: Need more subscribers? Quickly grow your contact lists here.

Round here that talk makes folk a tad suspicious. Understandably. But if you're legitimate, then I hope you'll be able to find a solution that helps you avoid Usolicited Bulk or Commercial Email and still make a reasonable business.

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Round here that talk makes folk a tad suspicious. Understandably. But if you're legitimate, then I hope you'll be able to find a solution that helps you avoid Usolicited Bulk or Commercial Email and still make a reasonable business.

It is understandable to be suspicious because of my business model.

But even if SORBS believes that my customers are spamming it doesn't give them the right to fraudulently publish static IP addresses as being dynamic.

It also doesn't give them the right to presume that my ISP has anything to do with it and list their static IP blocks as dynamic.

I'm quite sure my ISP is going to start filing lawsuits over this. I'm hoping you guys can offer some suggestions so it doesn't get that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
/24 was already blocked on our servers. Thanks :)

I don't see how this information is particularly relevant or helpful. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why he would be ticked off about you flooding the ticket system with 255 requests to remove a single block. The support form pretty clearly states:

Note: ISP's if you are logging a ticket for a DUHL listing and the rDNS is set to something which we know your naming convention, or it contains one of the 'static' naming conventions like in the Suggested Generic Naming Schemes Draft RFC check 'Yourself' and enter one of the listed IP addresses per /24 sized block. This will route any created ticket to the robot handler which will process and delist the netblock (upto /24) within a few hours, this is faster than routing the ticket to the ISP Support queue which can take a day or two.

Let me call out specifically "enter one of the listed IP addresses per /24 sized block. ".

However, as you said, a personal problem with you should not prevent him from following his own policies. I would suggest sending him an apology, and explaining that you didn't see that part of the support form and thought that the automated system required you to put in each IP address individually.

As far as legal action, blocklists generally are pretty much immune, as the fall under the category of "opinion", or are a list of IPs that meet specified criteria. However, in this case, since the DUHL clearly says that it contains only dynamic IP addresses, it is provable that the list owner knows that not to be the case, and chooses to publish them as such anyway, it could possibly fall under some kind of "libel" laws. But I suspect prosecuting would cost you more than you could ever hope to get out of it.

Edited by Telarin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is understandable to be suspicious because of my business model.

I find it more than "suspicious". I for one do not wish to receive any email from any "marketers".

But even if SORBS believes that my customers are spamming it doesn't give them the right to fraudulently publish static IP addresses as being dynamic.

You are not understanding the fundamental reason for a DUHL. Yes, it is labeled as a "Dynamic" listing. More accurately, it is a list of IPs which are blocked from sending "Direct-To-MX". Direct to MX means the end-user is sending email directly to recipients instead of using their ISP's SMTP server. It is my experience, that ALL such email is spam; and so I block access to all port25 connections who's RDNS has the words 'static', dynamic, ...... or ANY generic words. When RDNS contains such terms, it always means the mail server attempting connection is an "End-User" and not a legitimate mail server. ALL legitimate mail servers have control over their RDNS listing; either directly, or via their ISP. So, if you are legit, and you are example.com, then the RDNS of your sending IP needs to say something legit, like mailout.example.com.

Bottom line; if your email server were legitimate, it's RDNS would indicate such.

I'm quite sure my ISP is going to start filing lawsuits over this.

I doubt that your ISP is going to expend legal fees on a no-win law suit.

I'm hoping you guys can offer some suggestions so it doesn't get that far.

Yeah. Do it correctly. At least look legit. Get a swipe from your ISP, and correctly set your RDNS to something acceptable. OR, have your ISP RDNS your mail server to something which identifies it as yours. The other suggestion I have is to use your ISP's outbound mail server instead of sending direct to MX. As I said above, direct-to-MX email is a sure sign of spam, and will likely be blocked. If not by a RBL, then by the targeted system itself. I manage many email servers, and not a single one will ever accept email from an IP address which looks like an end-user. That's your bigger problem.

Seafire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see why he would be ticked off about you flooding the ticket system with 255 requests to remove a single block. The support form pretty clearly states:

Let me call out specifically "enter one of the listed IP addresses per /24 sized block. ".

I don't see thins anywhere on the support form nor the Dynamic IP FAQ:

https://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml

https://www.us.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/mail

Please clarify where you are reading this specifically. Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. Do it correctly. At least look legit. Get a swipe from your ISP, and correctly set your RDNS to something acceptable. OR, have your ISP RDNS your mail server to something which identifies it as yours. The other suggestion I have is to use your ISP's outbound mail server instead of sending direct to MX. As I said above, direct-to-MX email is a sure sign of spam, and will likely be blocked. If not by a RBL, then by the targeted system itself. I manage many email servers, and not a single one will ever accept email from an IP address which looks like an end-user. That's your bigger problem.

We only contact those who specifically signed up to receive information. So you won't be getting any emails from us if you didn't sign up for it.

Our mail server is legitimate, and our RDNS does indicate as such.

The thing is, our IP block is SWIP'd to us, and the RDNS entries are very specific:

<customername>.static.mail.<domain>.com

We are not using direct-to-MX software but are using Postfix MTA, which is a highly popular, legitimate, industry recognized replacement for Sendmail.

We're only using the word "static" in the RDNS entries because we're trying to get de-listed from SORBS DUHL. SORBS looks for this specific keyword as an indication of "staticness" as part of their requirements to not be "dynamic".

So, I am doing things correctly. I am using a real MTA, not direct-to-MX. This is why it is wholly inaccurate for me to be listed on the DUHL.

Tarabyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see thins anywhere on the support form nor the Dynamic IP FAQ:

https://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml

https://www.us.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/mail

Please clarify where you are reading this specifically. Thanks :)

from www.sorbs.net, click on help and support

That takes you to http://www.us.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support

The paragraph I quoted is about 2/3 down the page, just before the Continue button of the support form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from www.sorbs.net, click on help and support

That takes you to http://www.us.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support

The paragraph I quoted is about 2/3 down the page, just before the Continue button of the support form.

Thank you. That page does not show up when you're logged in to the system. Which would be the reason why we did not see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the letter I wrote Matthew

===============================================

Regarding: AS39948 216.224.234.0/24

Dear Matthew,

I am genuinely sorry if my staff offended you by posting multiple removal tickets. In no way was this meant to be any sort of attack on your system. We are simply trying to get removed from a DUHL listing of the previous owner of the IP block.

Because your system seemed to have an automated de-listing for single IPs, and because your DUHL support form claims to take 28 days, we simply focused on doing what seemed most efficient at the time.

In no way was this a personal attack on you, and in no way was there any hostile action taken. I wish to deeply apologize for the misunderstanding.

As a pragmatic business owner, I do what I can to make things happen efficiently. I did not mean to step on any toes through my employee's actions.

My IP block has complied with all of your requirements for de-listing, including changing our RDNS entries to include the word "static" in them.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to get this situation resolved. None of the IPs in question are dynamic and are therefore legitimately static.

Therefore, there should be no reason for you to refuse removal from your list, even if you do have some sort of grudge against my company.

As an owner of a public blacklist, it is your responsibility to comply with the conditions you've publicly posted. Please do the right thing and follow your posted guidelines for removal from the DUHL instead of taking an honest mistake personally and letting a grudge dictate your actions.

Thank you,

Tara Johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

Matthew Sullivan absolutely refuses to remove my IP block from the SORBS DUHL, even with my ISP requesting the removal.

No, I refuse to take delisting from spammers.

The IP block in question is:

216.224.234.0/24

All of the IP addresses have valid RDNS entries with the word "static" in them.

and when I receive a *single* delisting request from a valid source, (ie not 200+ from a spammer) I will delist it.

The end-user removal request tool only lets you submit one IP address at a time.

So setting up 1 MX record to point to all the IPs in the netblock and have them all delisted in one go is considered abuse of process. ie don't do it, and do it again and you get a permanent ban from all SORBS networks.

The helpdesk system says it takes up to 28 days to be removed for larger blocks than one IP.

It also says don't submit more than one ticket at a time, so 200+ tickets = abuse, don't do it.

Therefore, I had my support rep submit one request at a time for each IP on my c-class block.

Completely ignoring the fact we take one delisting request for the /24 which doesn't cause floods of tickets.

At first the IPs were removed from the block. But then suddenly Matthew Sullivan got angry and decided it was a "ticket flood" and banned her from the system.

No, you abused the system, the system deleted your abuse when it was detected in the automated watchdog.

I didn't get angry, I banned you from the support system, and not happy with that, you created a new email address and tried to do the same thing again, so I banned that, and your whole network from the support system. Then within an hour someone who is supposedly your ISP mailed in new tickets. I am iscussing with that person whether you should be terminated as a spammer as I already have collected evidence from 'streefreetechnologies.com'.

At this point, I went to my ISP and had them do an ISP removal request; Matthew again refused to remove the listing from my ISP's request.

Its not refused, the ticket is open, it can take up to 28 days to respond, and we have responded multiple times within the first 24 hours, we are discussing with your ISP about the level of spam coming from your networks.

These IP addresses are VALID, static, not Dynamic, with correct RDNS entries that include the word 'static' in them.

... and they will be removed when we have finished our investigation into the deliberate abuse of our servers by yourself.

When my ISP issued a request, instead of taking the request seriously, Matthew Sullivan chose to add my ISP's unrelated static IP blocks to his DUHL as well:

216.224.233.0/24

216.224.235.0/24

ROFL.. they've been listed since 2006 anyone can see that from the public evidence.

I'm pretty upset that Matthew Sullivan won't follow his own policies for removal at:

http://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml

Not jumping to your demands immediately and blocking abuse of our servers and processes is "not following his own policies" ... tee hee, you sound funny.

I am also really confused why SORBS DUHL has any sort of authority whatsoever when it is clear that Matthew Sullivan doesn't mind lying to the world that a block is dynamic when it is clearly static because he has a personal vendetta with someone.

I know you personally? Ooo do tell.. I want to know where to send the bill for the cleanup and my time processing your drivel.

Matthew insists on listing my valid static IPs -- and furthermore additionally listing the static IPs of my ISP, as dynamic addresses -- in an effort to abuse his power as a blacklist owner.

No I just refused a delisting request from a spammer and abuser of my networks. That is very different.

Apparently Matthew is under the impression that I'm spamming, even though he has nothing with which to

No, not "under the impression" I have evidence that you are spamming particularly from 64.191.122.0/24 which as it happens Senderbase.org show as having a 'poor' reputation.

make this claim other than an APEWS listing. As far as I know, Matthew is the only one who takes APEWS seriously, and I've heard that they will permanently list a /17 block for receiving a single email from a single IP address to one of their spamtraps. It makes me wonder if Matthew is anonymously behind APEWS.

ROFL there are plenty of people who know who is behind APEWS, and I don't use APEWS anywhere.

I only bring this up because he is using the APEWS listing as justification to not remove my IP block from the DUHL.

No.

But even then this really has nothing to do with spam, as there are plenty of spam blacklists out there, and if I was actually spamming I'd be listed on real IP blacklists and SORBS DUHL would be of no concern to me.

No.

Long story short: this has to do with being listed as a dynamic IP block, and being refused de-listing because Matthew Sullivan took it personally that my employee submitted 255 tickets through his system.

Admission of abuse.

Apparently Matthew is under the impression that anyone who runs an email service is by default a spammer, so he is within his rights to lie to the world about a static IP block being dynamic. And he is also under the impression that my ISP is somehow related to me other than providing my service, therefore he is discriminating against them also and now publishing their static IP blocks as dynamic.

Anyone who send 140+ spams per day to *one* of my spamtraps is a spammer. You are a spammer, shortly that spamtrap will be integrated into the SORBS spam DB, for the moment it is just an evidence collector.

I don't know if Matthew cares about his reputation or not, but I am ready to start contacting IronPort, 1and1, and anyone else who takes SORBS DUHL seriously and informing them that Matthew does not in fact honor his own publicly-listed policies. He is abusing his power and needs to be exposed.

You haven't shown where I am abusing my "power", you have just told everyone you abused my system and you got banned from it.

Regards,

Mat

PS: This is not the appropriate forum to discuss this, you will not receive a reply from me further as I will not be cheching back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 255 tickets submitted really does seem excessive, and I can definitely see why this earned you a ban from their support system. After that if another email address was used to circumvent that ban, that really doesn't look good...

Sort of off the topic, but I've noticed about 90% of the email coming from that /24 in the past few days has been to accounts on our mail system that haven't existed for a long time (some for as long as 6 years). This would somewhat make sense if it was just from one IP address (or one customer) in that /24 doing this. Then it could just be one unscrupulous customer with a purchased list on your network. However, it's coming from many different IPs in that /24, which makes me think some "opt-in list" which is being given/sold to them is horribly out of date and not really opt-in....

Also, 216.224.234.107 appears to blocked by spamcop at the moment. I'm not saying you are a spam operation, just that there were some oddities that I noticed from your /24. Just my 2 cents. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I refuse to take delisting from spammers.

Not spamming.

and when I receive a *single* delisting request from a valid source, (ie not 200+ from a spammer) I will delist it.

My staff was delisting one IP at a time because your delisting form only allowed one IP at a time. It was not an attempt to "spam" your server.

So setting up 1 MX record to point to all the IPs in the netblock and have them all delisted in one go is considered abuse of process. ie don't do it, and do it again and you get a permanent ban from all SORBS networks.

So ban me from the network, but don't defraud the world by telling them my static IPs are dynamic when clearly they aren't.

I didn't get angry, I banned you from the support system, and not happy with that, you created a new email address and tried to do the same thing again, so I banned that, and your whole network from the support system. Then within an hour someone who is supposedly your ISP mailed in new tickets.

I appealed the matter to my ISP because of the rejection. My ISP is a wholly separate business entity legally registered to a completely different person.

I am iscussing with that person whether you should be terminated as a spammer as I already have collected evidence from 'streefreetechnologies.com'.

I don't understand why you thinking I'm a spammer or not should have any consideration whatsover as to following your policies to only list Dynamic IPs in your DUHL. The DUHL is for listing dynamic IPs, not for listing supposed spam sources.

So if you actually have any evidence of spam (highly doubtful considering I'm not spamming) then you can take that up with a blacklist meant for spam and leave the DUHL out of the picture.

Its not refused, the ticket is open, it can take up to 28 days to respond, and we have responded multiple times within the first 24 hours, we are discussing with your ISP about the level of spam coming from your networks.

I just hope for their sake that you de-list the IP block, because otherwise I will be forced to find another provider. And if my ISP loses me as a customer, they will certainly take it personally.

... and they will be removed when we have finished our investigation into the deliberate abuse of our servers by yourself.

Attempting to be removed from a bogus listing in the DUHL with my static IP block should not be considered deliberate abuse. It was an honest effort to correct inaccurate information that you are publishing to the world.

ROFL.. they've been listed since 2006 anyone can see that from the public evidence.

This IP block was not mine until last week. I won't keep it either if it continues to be "tainted" by your bogus listing.

Not jumping to your demands immediately and blocking abuse of our servers and processes is "not following his own policies" ... tee hee, you sound funny.

Not de-listing someone with static IP's from a list of dynamic IP's is pretty dishonest.

I know you personally? Ooo do tell.. I want to know where to send the bill for the cleanup and my time processing your drivel.

No I just refused a delisting request from a spammer and abuser of my networks. That is very different.

I doubt you know me personally, I just felt like your actions showed that you're taking my removal requests as a personal attack.

Again, any supposed abuse of your network was completely unintentional. We only submitted multiple tickets because it appeared to be the most efficient way to get removed. No abuse was intended. Just de-listing of static IP's from your dynamic IP block.

No, not "under the impression" I have evidence that you are spamming particularly from 64.191.122.0/24 which as it happens Senderbase.org show as having a 'poor' reputation.

The "poor" reputation status does not constitute spamming. That is just your interpretation of it. What it actually constitutes is poor delivery rates due to spam filters blocking the messages. That is different than showing spam.

Irregardless, the issue has nothing to do with spam and everything to do with listing static IP blocks as dynamic when they are clearly static according to your own published documents.

ROFL there are plenty of people who know who is behind APEWS, and I don't use APEWS anywhere.

If you say so, my ISP claims you sent them a link to ASPEWS showing their business name "AKA" my business name. Needless to say the owner of my ISP is extremely upset that you are making the claim that his company is somehow a tradename of my business entity.

Anyone who send 140+ spams per day to *one* of my spamtraps is a spammer. You are a spammer, shortly that spamtrap will be integrated into the SORBS spam DB, for the moment it is just an evidence collector.

What are you talking about? While I very much doubt the authenticity of the claim (an authentic claim would be quickly followed by proof), it is technically impossible for my system to send out 140 messages per day to the same email address.

So if one of my customers just happened to contact your spamtrap -- and you subsequently confirmed the optin -- the most number of contacts possible to any one email address is one per day.

Irregardless, this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that static IP's are being incorrectly listed as dynamic in the DUHL.

If you have some blacklist with proof as you claim, then you are within your right to add me to that list. But you are overstepping your bounds when you dishonestly publish my static IP block as dynamic.

You haven't shown where I am abusing my "power", you have just told everyone you abused my system and you got banned from it.

If you continue to refuse to remove a clearly static IP block from your dynamic list, then you are clearly abusing your power. You've not offered any reason for not removing it other than that you are unhappy that my employee issued multiple de-listing requests (one per IP, as per how your page is set up).

PS: This is not the appropriate forum to discuss this, you will not receive a reply from me further as I will not be cheching back.

Well then let it be known publicly that you are intentionally and dishonestly publishing a known static IP block on your dynamic IP list. All other arguments are highly irrelevant; you are purposefully publishing invalid information.

The 255 tickets submitted really does seem excessive, and I can definitely see why this earned you a ban from their support system. After that if another email address was used to circumvent that ban, that really doesn't look good...

I agree that we were in the wrong on this, and I've apologized for it.

Also, 216.224.234.107 appears to blocked by spamcop at the moment. I'm not saying you are a spam operation, just that there were some oddities that I noticed from your /24. Just my 2 cents. :)

Thank you - I will investigate this. Customers found abusing my network are terminated. :D

Edited by tarabyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stressfreecontact.com Listed on URIBL black

You are on more than one list apparently.

Who's sending from 216.224.233.114 with no rDNS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We only contact those who specifically signed up to receive information. So you won't be getting any emails from us if you didn't sign up for it.

That's BS Unless it is double opt-in. IE, you have an email from the specific recipient. Clicking on a web link does NOT OPT-IN make.

Our mail server is legitimate, and our RDNS does indicate as such.

Really? Then simply change the "static" in your IN-ADDR.ARPA to something useful.

The thing is, our IP block is SWIP'd to us, and the RDNS entries are very specific

Then why do you have a "static" something in the reverse listing?

<customername>.static.mail.<domain>.com

BAD! Make it "customer.customer-domain.com" and you will have less trouble.

We are not using direct-to-MX software ...

There is no such thing as direct-to-MX 'Software'. Sendmail, Postfix..... all can use a relay or direct. It is not a function of the software, it's a function of how you set it up.

We're only using the word "static" in the RDNS entries because we're trying to get de-listed from SORBS DUHL.

The "static" will likely have the opposite effect. Lose it.

SORBS looks for this specific keyword as an indication of "staticness"

Simply wrong!

So, I am doing things correctly.

Wrong again!

End of FREE advice. If you want to be setup "correctly" send me a private email, and I would be glad to educate you. My rates are $125.00/Hr.

Seafire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stressfreecontact.com Listed on URIBL black

You are on more than one list apparently.

Who's sending from 216.224.233.114 with no rDNS?

It's not my IP block so I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's BS Unless it is double opt-in. IE, you have an email from the specific recipient. Clicking on a web link does NOT OPT-IN make.

Sending an email to the subscriber asking them to click on a web link to confirm their opt-in doesn't constitute opt-in? How do you figure?

According to Spamhaus this qualifies:

http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?...eting%20FAQs#15

I consider them to be an authority on the matter.

Really? Then simply change the "static" in your IN-ADDR.ARPA to something useful.

Then why do you have a "static" something in the reverse listing?

I was going by Matthew Sullivan's document located here:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-d...-schemes-00.txt

There is no such thing as direct-to-MX 'Software'. Sendmail, Postfix..... all can use a relay or direct. It is not a function of the software, it's a function of how you set it up.

Well, I honestly don't know what you are talking about. And I did read The Book of Postfix cover to cover:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Postfix-State-A...4101&sr=8-1

The "static" will likely have the opposite effect. Lose it.

Okay, I will when my IP's get de-SORBS'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I am not a server admin, I am a little bit confused by this interchange. From some comments, it sounds as though you have been listed on blocklists because you used bad lists and have been using this IP block for some time even though you claim to have 'best practices' mailing lists. From other comments, you recently signed up for these IP blocks which were already listed on SORBS and were trying to get them delisted.

Whichever it is, it seems that you are quick to make decisions and judgments without sufficient research. My advice, when making an apology, is NOT to make excuses or claim that the person you are apologizing to is part of the problem.

It may seem to you to be illogical that a 'static' IP address can be listed on a dynamic blocklist, but apparently whatever you are doing makes your listing not illogical to other server admins. They are the ones who can list your IP range (like Merlyn) and there is not anything you can do about it - my server, my rules.

The internet is innately a very polite place. Sometimes server admins seem to the uninitiated to be very rude and crude; however, they, in general, treat others as they would like to be treated when it comes to the technical side of connection. If someone does not conform to the established rules of the road, then they are simply ignored (offline Miss Manners' cut direct) using blocking. Email to spamtraps or MXs that aren't standard gets you ignored. Public blocklists are used only if they are useful in stopping spam and allowing legitimate email traffic. Unlike offline, one can't force anyone to do anything online. Also, one cannot change things by attacking via semantics. Offline, lawyers can create laws. Online, walk like a duck....

It won't matter how many times you have read 'best practices' and how many quotes you can come up with, if anyone receives unsolicited email in a spam trap, you are a duck to server admins and my server, my rules - no ducks.

If you are a legitimate business, then you would be wise to take up the offer of consulting advice. If you are just trying to wiggle around the rules so that you can send unsolicited email, then you will be blocked by more blocklists than Matthew's - many of which will not be public.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not my IP block so I have no idea.

Ok I misunderstood your comments on that range. You are not operating from that range, but have just the one /24 from this ISP.

Your domain stressfreecontact.com, regardless of what range you jump to, was listed as a spam source on URIBL blacklist yesterday. I see you're out today. That is another sign to any blacklist owner to think twice before removal. Although in the DUHL of sorbs, your range will get out when the request comes in the proper way they expect. Its also not so much a dynamic IP list, but a list of dynamic and generic ranges. Mathew is hard core about following his rules, but he does delist even if the person does personally piss him off when the list rules are followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I misunderstood your comments on that range. You are not operating from that range, but have just the one /24 from this ISP.

Yes.

Your domain stressfreecontact.com, regardless of what range you jump to, was listed as a spam source on URIBL blacklist yesterday. I see you're out today. That is another sign to any blacklist owner to think twice before removal.

I honestly don't know why my domain was being listed in URIBL. That domain name is not being hyperlinked in any emails coming from my system. URIBL will list any domain names found in spam, regardless of the source of the IP address. They also will not release any data to anyone about how they made their determination, so there is no way for me to know who was spamming my domain name.

Irregardless, SORBS DUHL is a policy black list and not a spam blacklist. The only determination that matters is that the IPs are indeed static. Nothing else should come into play because that is the sole determining factor of a listing.

Although in the DUHL of sorbs, your range will get out when the request comes in the proper way they expect. Its also not so much a dynamic IP list, but a list of dynamic and generic ranges. Mathew is hard core about following his rules, but he does delist even if the person does personally piss him off when the list rules are followed.

I hope you are right. When he does, I will gladly post here that the issue is resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I am not a server admin, I am a little bit confused by this interchange. From some comments, it sounds as though you have been listed on blocklists because you used bad lists and have been using this IP block for some time even though you claim to have 'best practices' mailing lists.

A lot of people have tried steering the conversation in that direction, but it really is irrelevant to this discussion.

From other comments, you recently signed up for these IP blocks which were already listed on SORBS and were trying to get them delisted.

Yes, the IP blocks I signed up for are being listed as Dynamic, when they are in fact Static. When I requested de-listing, SORBS rejected the de-listing, even though my network was properly configured.

It may seem to you to be illogical that a 'static' IP address can be listed on a dynamic blocklist, but apparently whatever you are doing makes your listing not illogical to other server admins. They are the ones who can list your IP range (like Merlyn) and there is not anything you can do about it - my server, my rules.

It is illogical and also inaccurate to list static IPs as dynamic when they are not. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with what Merlyn or other mail admins might do with their own personal server.

SORBS is not Matthew Sullivan's personal blocklist, it is a public blocklist that is used by large corporations who determine whether or not to accept email based upon the fact that an IP address is dynamic. This is where the problem lies, because my IP block is static, but it is being published to the world as being dynamic.

The internet is innately a very polite place. Sometimes server admins seem to the uninitiated to be very rude and crude; however, they, in general, treat others as they would like to be treated when it comes to the technical side of connection. If someone does not conform to the established rules of the road, then they are simply ignored (offline Miss Manners' cut direct) using blocking. Email to spamtraps or MXs that aren't standard gets you ignored. Public blocklists are used only if they are useful in stopping spam and allowing legitimate email traffic. Unlike offline, one can't force anyone to do anything online. Also, one cannot change things by attacking via semantics. Offline, lawyers can create laws. Online, walk like a duck....

In general, that is true. But it does not apply to everything, and really I'm not sure how this is relevant to SORBS listing static IP blocks as dynamic.

It won't matter how many times you have read 'best practices' and how many quotes you can come up with, if anyone receives unsolicited email in a spam trap, you are a duck to server admins and my server, my rules - no ducks.

Right, but this topic has nothing to do with my business practices.

The issue at hand is a technical issue. You don't have to be a server admin to understand that publicly listing a static IP block as dynamic is the wrong course of action. Personal feelings, opinions of business practices, etc. should not come into play.

If the IP block shows that it is static through the technical requirements that are defined by SORBS, then SORBS should honor their own policies and remove that IP block from their blacklist.

If you are a legitimate business, then you would be wise to take up the offer of consulting advice. If you are just trying to wiggle around the rules so that you can send unsolicited email, then you will be blocked by more blocklists than Matthew's - many of which will not be public.

My legitimacy as a business has nothing to do with whether or not I choose to hire a SpamCop consultant or not.

If I wasn't a legitimate business, SORBS and other blacklists would be of no concern to me whatsoever, because I would not be registering IP blocks in my company name but would instead hijack "zombied" computers or exploit free services like gmail or yahoo.

All these pre-determined judgments against my company are getting a bit silly. It would be pretty ridiculous for a spammer to post to the SpamCop forums, and I resent the implication.

Please refrain from making pat judgments about my company, and focus on the issue at hand instead: my IP block being listed as dynamic when it is clearly static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My legitimacy as a business has nothing to do with whether or not I choose to hire a SpamCop consultant or not.

If I wasn't a legitimate business, SORBS and other blacklists would be of no concern to me whatsoever, because I would not be registering IP blocks in my company name but would instead hijack "zombied" computers or exploit free services like gmail or yahoo.

All these pre-determined judgments against my company are getting a bit silly. It would be pretty ridiculous for a spammer to post to the SpamCop forums, and I resent the implication.

Please refrain from making pat judgments about my company, and focus on the issue at hand instead: my IP block being listed as dynamic when it is clearly static.

1. The offer was not from a "SpamCop consultant", just another of the users here who apparently does consultant work.

2. There are many spamming businesses that setup their own email servers/networks.

3. Spammers post in here all the time claiming what they are doing is not spamming, yet later are proved that they are sending Unsolicited Bulk/Commercial Emails. Your IP's, for the most part, appear to be clean according to SpamCop's user base.

4. You have posted to a public forum where the subject matter is SpamCop (the blocklist and email features). Your post IS located in the Lounge area, where things are never "off-topic" but YOU can not direct the conversation just the way you want it to go. You have every right to ignore the comments not following your agenda, but others have every right to make them. They also seem relevant, in that the person you are having a problem with also called out these types of problems as part of the reason (as I read it) there will be a more thourough investigate before the listing is changed. It might very well be moved to another list based on the evidence that is found and mentioned by that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The offer was not from a "SpamCop consultant", just another of the users here who apparently does consultant work.

Okay. This wasn't entirely clear.

2. There are many spamming businesses that setup their own email servers/networks.

3. Spammers post in here all the time claiming what they are doing is not spamming, yet later are proved that they are sending Unsolicited Bulk/Commercial Emails.

I'll take your word for it.

Your IP's, for the most part, appear to be clean according to SpamCop's user base.

Right, because we're not spamming.

4. You have posted to a public forum where the subject matter is SpamCop (the blocklist and email features). Your post IS located in the Lounge area, where things are never "off-topic" but YOU can not direct the conversation just the way you want it to go. You have every right to ignore the comments not following your agenda, but others have every right to make them. They also seem relevant, in that the person you are having a problem with also called out these types of problems as part of the reason (as I read it) there will be a more thourough investigate before the listing is changed. It might very well be moved to another list based on the evidence that is found and mentioned by that person.

Okay, fair enough. Just it would be nice if someone could help me resolve the issue. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×