North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by federal law.
We do not have any problem with SORBS. We use SORBS entire list with the exception of the DUL at all of our client sites. I have worked with Mat for years, and despite our differences with regard to DUL lists, our relationship has always been both respectful and cordial. This guy was talking out the wrong end of his anatomy, and Mat called him on it. You can like SORBS (as I do), or not like them, that's your choice, and I will respect all of you for it. But a follow-up bashing SORBS listing policies certainly went off topic if the original premise of the post was maybe a little off topic. I think what we're talking about here as the larger issue is your dog in your yard. Your dog is free to take a crap in your yard all it likes, but when your dog comes over to my yard and takes a crap, I might build a fence. I might also conscript something like Mat's service, or Steve Lindford's service, or mine to keep my yard clean, if that means your dog doesn't get to play in my yard... well that's just unfortunate for you. (or in another manner of speaking, I could care less) And damn, I think I just equated all of my volunteer time to the equivalent of a pooper-scooper... ooh well. Andrew D Kirch - All Things IT Office: 317-755-0200 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of S. > Ryan > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:42 PM > To: Steve Sobol > Cc: Matthew Sullivan; nanog@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by > federal law. > > > Nothing is wrong with what he posted. The guy is a moron. However, I > was taking my 15 min of fame to jab at SORBS policy of listing people on > their respective lists. It's dysfunctional and broken, but that again > is just my opinion. > > Oh and, of course publicly humiliating the guy is certainly not that > cool. However, while it's not really above me to do the same, he could > have removed the email address so spammers aren't adding to that guys > list of problems. > > Anyway, don't mind me. I just wanted to add to the off-topic drivel Mat > posted since I can't stand SORBS. :> > > Steve Sobol wroteth on 3/15/2007 7:31 PM: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, S. Ryan wrote: > > > > > >> Typical SORBS behavior. While this guy can demand all he wants, > doesn't > >> mean he will get what he wants or that he's right or wrong. > > > > What's wrong with what Mat posted? The guy claiming DNS is regulated by > > federal law is an idiot. Not that I always agree with what Mat says, but > > the guy's claims are obviously and patently false. The claims, in fact, > > are so ridiculous that I tend to think he's making them to weasel out of > > solving the problem that got him listed in the first place. People doing > > that *deserve* to be publically ridiculed. > > > > When I talk to Mat I generally have no problems having a civil and > > productive discussion with him. But I don't start out with an attitude, > > and I don't cook up absurd stories to try to get out of fixing my spam > > problem. (Not that I have one, but if I did, I'd not try to weasel out > of > > fixing it.) > > > >> Personally, we gave up using SORBS because of it's very high > >> false-positive ratio > > > > YMMV; at $DAYJOB we don't seem to have the same problem. > > > > Disclaimer: My opinions, not my boss's, etc. > >