spamassassin-users December 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-users archives
spamassassin-users: Re: SA Sorbs Usage/Rules

Re: SA Sorbs Usage/Rules

From: Noel Butler <noel.butler_at_nospam>
Date: Sat Dec 17 2011 - 02:16:52 GMT
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:

> Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
> of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
>

Plenty of people can attest to the fact there is no payment taking
place, its just a scare tactic to coerce admins to act rather then
ignore and hope it sorts itself out. Don't use DNSBL's in SA myself, I
use them in MTA (frankly, where they belong).
At least under the control of its original owner there wasn't anyway,
and yes, we, like most large ISP's, had a couple of times the odd
different outbound smtp server listed with them, typically we were
alerted of the listing quickly (by use of mon) , a login to the SORBS
site for info, and the culprit was identified and we were unlisted in
hours, only one time did it take about 24 hours, and, IIRC, that was a
holiday season, happy to say not had any my servers listed anywhere that
I know of since 2005.

Lastly, I would have thought SA dev team would have liked to see hard
evidence that someone was _forced_ to pay the 50 donation to be
delisted, because all I here is "the web site says it" which frankly
doesn't cut it with me, we were nobody special to SORBS, so I can't see
why they'd remove us for free but forcibly demand payments from others,
the only common ground we had with Matt back then was we were both
located in the same city, along with 2 million others.