The Imminent Demise of SORBS 290
An anonymous reader lets us know about the dire straits the SORBS anti-spam blacklist finds itself in. According to a notice posted on the top page, long-time host the University of Queensland has "decided not to honor their agreement with... SORBS and terminate the hosting contract." The post, signed "Michelle Sullivan (Previously known as Matthew Sullivan)," says that the project needs either to "find alternative hosting for a 42RU rack in the Brisbane area of Queensland Australia" or to find a buyer. Offers are solicited for the assets of SORBS as an ongoing anti-spam service — it's now handling over 30 billion DNS queries per day. An update to the post says "A number of offers have already been made, we are evaluating each on their own merits." Failing a successful resolution, SORBS will cease operations on July 20, 2009 at 12 noon Brisbane time. Such a shutdown could slow or disrupt anti-spam efforts for large numbers of mail hosts worldwide.
No big loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
A blacklist that charges you to get your IP removed will inevitably block far more than real spammers.
*snort* (Score:5, Insightful)
"Such a shutdown could slow or disrupt anti-spam efforts for large numbers of mail hosts worldwide. "
You're kidding, right?
They have done more to give legitimate anti-spam efforts a black eye than ANY legislative attempts to 'solve' the problem ever could.
I -used- to believe that 'collateral damage' was a legitimate 'tactic' in the fight against spammers. I've grown up since then.
Re:*snort* (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, this would let more spam through spam filters, really.
Re:The REAL story (Score:4, Insightful)
How is what Michelle did any of your business?
Re:No big loss! (Score:5, Insightful)
You dont count (Score:5, Insightful)
Your parent is right. There does exist a set of clueless people who straight filter based on RBL's like SORBS. Sure, filter your home mail server any way you want, but the *second* you have third-party people using your system (or the second you run the mail server for a business), you should be outright fired for filtering based solely on something like SORBS.
That is because I dont waste my time calling you. I call your boss and your sales department. If you really are running a business mail server and filtering based on SORBS, you are basically clueless and I'll gain nothing talking to you Your sales staff though, I'm sure they'd be happy to know you are blocking my customers inquiries into your companies products. And I'm probably also sure that if you are the type who filters like that, they probably have a bunch of other issues with the way you run their systems and this just might be the straw that broke the camels back.
Re:Um, is this at all credible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:(of course, I may have mis-read you) (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. That's a lot of hostility there.
First off, I never said I used SORBS. I did some research first about which ones would probably be best, respond to delisting requests in a timely fashion, and could provide me with a list that was had a lot of maintenance. Spamhaus and Spamcop are fairly decent and AFAIK, they DO respond to delisting requests and don't just put IP blocks up willy nilly.
I'm hardly an idiot. If I could find an open source software package capable of doing what I require, I would have gone that way a long time ago. As it stands, I have to use a proprietary software package that does not allow me to weight the incoming emails based of *any* RBL's. I can only refuse the connection based on the RBL's.
My original point stands. You want to be so incredibly hostile and label anyone that dares to use a RBL (or maybe just SORBS, could you clarify?) as an idiot, but fail to realize just how many mail server software packages out there don't do what you are asking for.
Try taking the hostility down a notch or two, and if you are so knowledgeable about mail server product that do offer weighting based on RBL's, why not just post it here for people to read? Maybe there are people new to running a mail server, don't understand the implications of a RBL (which hardly makes them an idiot), and would gladly implement a better solution.
Or... you could just attack people personally and denounce them for being idiots without actually writing anything productive while foaming at the mouth.
Re:Explanation please (Score:0, Insightful)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
The death of SORBS should be good news to any decent ISP mail admin out there. Nothing like being forced to pay to get your mail server IP removed from a blacklist because you somehow can't keep the thousands of residential customers on your service from occasionally getting a virus and sending a few spams.
SORBS sucks and has for years. Don't get me wrong, I hate spam as much as the next guy, but sometimes a few get through, that's just how it is.
Luckily we haven't had much trouble with them lately since it seems that the vast majority of mail admins came to their senses and stopped using SORBS... frankly I'm surprised they need that many servers.
Re:Death to SORBS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The REAL story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh.. you will find a lot of hostility (Score:4, Insightful)
> It is SORBS that I have an issue with. SORBS was created out of pure spite.
No, you're confusing "spite" with "greed". There's a difference. Spite is blacklisting a spammer's ISP in a fit of anti-spam zealotry. Greed is blacklisting a spammer's ISP hoping to extort a huge amount of money from them so their customers can send email again, and then blacklisting them again right after you un-blacklist them (yes, SORBS does this).
Good riddance to them. They've done nothing but tarnish the reputation of legitimate RBLs.
Spamcop, Spamhaus, and Uceprotect are plenty of RBL for me.
Not that disrespectful (Score:4, Insightful)
I just want to point out that that's not generally considered respectful language
I'm not so sure that holding a different definition of the word "girl" than you do is really disrespectful. I get what you're saying but you've got to understand that to the population at large there is a difference between someone born biologically female and someone who surgically removed their genitals and started hormone therapy (or whatever other combination of measures you took to legally change your gender). For example, you never could and never will bear a child. Not that all women can, but they've generally got a higher likelihood of being able to do so. So people like to have different words for those different things. You've got to face the music, to Joe six-pack you're not a girl, you're a post-op transsexual.
I get what you're trying to say but I also feel like you're trying to strongarm others into changing the definitions of their words. If somebody doesn't think you're "really a girl" and you take offense to that, you're just picking a fight over semantics. Go ahead and wait until they say something really inflammatory and hateful before you bust out the righteous indignation, you'll win more hearts and minds.
Re:So, what is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No big loss! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary is absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course not. If someone they haven't met sends them mail, and it's dropped as spam, why would they complain? They never even knew about it.
Re:*snort* (Score:3, Insightful)
When 'collateral damage' was useful,
For some of us, that was never the case. There are three viable ISPs in my city: Qwest, cable, and the local mom-and-pop. I went with the latter to host my little home server because I knew the admins and the company had a good reputation. Now, suppose SORBS blocks [1] their upstream. What am I supposed to do, exactly? Switch to one of the mega-ISPs that will actively try to prevent me from running a server?
No, the whole idea of collateral damage only looks good to sociopaths or people who've never had limited options.
[1] Their take on it: "We don't block! We blacklist!" My take on it: the hell you don't. That's like CYBERsitter claiming that they don't block; they only provide recommendations.
Re:Not that disrespectful (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with everything you've said here. As I said, I don't think Vega was intending the language to be disrespectful or hurtful. Likewise, I understood exactly what she meant, and Vega was using an culturally-understood phrasing when said, "...she wasn't really a girl."
However, I think you raise the point I'm trying to make by saying, "Not that all women [can bear a child]..." The fact is, any individual definition of 'girl' (or 'boy') will ultimately boil down to "I knows it when I sees it," because there are so many edge cases: definitions of genetics get tricky with people who have XXY or XYY instead of XX or XY, definitions of childbearing get difficult (as you mention) with people who are infertile, definitions of how one was raised get confusing with trans people (and other definition-straddling or -crossing individuals), definitions based on appearance get muddled with anyone not confirming to strict gendered appearances (and people with AIS [wikipedia.org]), etc, etc.
As such, what I'm putting forth is that it's most respectful to use someone's own self-identification when labeling someone a man or a woman.
Oh, completely - I'm 100% trying to get people to change their definitions of 'man' and 'woman' (and 'boy' and 'girl' and so on and so forth). I'd like to think I'm trying to convince them rather than strongarm them, but I suppose that'd just be a different semantic argument. ::grin::
Well, definitions are important. I identify as a Jew, too, and I would be offended if someone else said I wasn't "really" a Jew because I don't observe the sabbath or keep kosher (or a number of other things...I said I was a Jew, not a particularly observant one). I don't think I was in the wrong (or, as a note to moderators, trolling...) when I said it's "...not generally considered respectful language [to say someone who is trans isn't "really" a girl]." You're right, I should wait until there's overt transphobia before being similarly divisive, butI don't think I was being righteously indignant in what I said. At least I certainly wasn't trying to be. But pointing out that I'll ruffle feathers by sticking up for myself doesn't mean I shouldn't. [derailingfordummies.com]
-Trillian