North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SORBS Contact
Steve Sobol wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote:If you checked with the original complainant you would find that both the zombie and DUHL listings are cleared. If you knew the ticket numbers and where they sit in the SORBS RT Support system you would know that there were multiple tickets logged the oldest now being 10 days, the most recent being 5 days - and under published policy the earliest was pushed into the more recent. You'll also note that the original complaint was about a single IP address as part of a /27 within a /19 listing.
$DAYJOB lists spam filtering amongst the services we offer to our clients. I know we're using you to block IPs at the firewall, and we're probably also doing so at the server level. I am going to talk to my boss and co-workers about the impact of removing SORBS from our DNSBL list, because your replies lately have been snarky and completely unprofessional, including the reply quoted above. (Yes. It sucks that spammers are still spamming. So what?)The quoted text above is intended for a few that might still be on this list, non of which posted to this thread. The fact remains some ISPs provide transit to known criminal organisations for hijacked netblocks which are used for nothing but abuse (hosting trojans and viruses). Money talks.
I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any better by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some cases, never were.Where do you get that from...? We fix incorrect listings as soon as notified and with no deliberate delay. If you are refering to listings like Dean Anderson's stolen netblock these are not delisted until such time as proof is obtained that our information is incorrect.
We have been informed that Dean picked up that portable /16 (and 2 other networks - one of which was a non-portable UUNET block) when he parted company with OSF in 1998. I have been contacted on a few occasions by Dean demanding delisting, each time I have asked for proof that he did not steal the netblock from the OSFs creditors (taking without permission even from a company folding is still stealing) - his response was a lot of bluster followed by the creation of the IADL.org site. A few people (including myself) have attempted to contact 'The Open Group' who are the new owners of the old OSF organisation. I am not aware of a reply that has been received from anyone other than Dean indicating that Dean is the legitimate owner of the said netblock. You will also note that at least one of the netblocks that Dean has indicated that he was a legitimate owner of have been taken back and are reallocated. To date no-one has backed Dean up in his assertion that he did not steal the netblock, all that we have seen is a short time after the listing suddenly Dean started providing services to 'opengroup.org' and cited that as proof he owns the block - considering the OpenGroup is in the UK now and are now unlikely to be able to prove to a court that they are the legitimate owners of the netblock I don't see that as reason to consider Dean the legitimate owner. A verifiable document from the OSF/OpenGroup indicating that Dean Anderson is the legitimate owner of their /16 and it was transfered to him with their knowledge and permission is all that is required for delisting... however it seems Dean cannot obtain that adding weight to the view that he did indeed steal the netblocks.
Something to consider before replying: is this on or off topic for NANOG? (personally I think part of this is on topic, other parts of the thread are definitely off topic)