North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: SORBS Contact
- From: Michael Nicks
- Date: Wed Aug 09 14:40:54 2006
Don't forget racketeering.
"A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery,
and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities."
I think most network operators have learned about the ultra-liberal
listing activities of RBLs these days.
o: +1-785-856-9800 x221
Dean Anderson wrote:
SORBS is a well-known abusive/defamatory blacklist. In the US, that
violates a number of state and federal laws:
2. illegal group boycott in violation of antitrust act
3. (usually) unauthorized blocking by ISP in violation of its
contract with its customer, which is a violation of the
electronic communications privacy act.
4. There are frequently state laws that apply to electronic
communications that are even more broad.
You _can_ make the US based ISP not use SORBS. Most ISPs know better,
See also http://www.iadl.org.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here....
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Stefan Hegger wrote:
We have the same problem. We are blacklisted and I filled out the webform. I
got an email regarding ticket number and account/password to track the
ticket. But it seems that nobody is working on it.
There has been extensive discussion on NANAE and NANABl newsgroups on
this issue. The bottom line: The SORBS ticket queue is handled by a
group of unpaid volunteers, and there is quite a backlog.
That's why there is the automatic de-listing system in place, which
requires proper host names and longer time-to-live (TTL) values in
Yes, it's a bit of work, but it beats waiting for someone to get around
to your ticket.
No, I'm not associated in any way with SORBS, just an interested
observer and system administrator who has had to deal with listings myself.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are "good" and
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, S. Ryan wrote:
Even worse if your ISP uses it and demands you ask the 'offender' to get