SORBS - Is There a Better Spam Blacklist? 226
rootnl asks: "Recently I decided to upgrade my email server with better spam detection and decided to use the SORBS blacklist. It is a very aggressive blacklist and could be deemed quite effective. However, I discovered two totally legal servers currently being blocked by their Spam 'o Matic service: a Google Gmail server (64.233.182.185), and another server belonging to an ISP called Orange (193.252.22.249). Now, normally one would think these providers would probably get themselves de-listed, but the process provided revolves around donating money. As I just happen to have a friend that is using the said ISP, I have to seriously reconsider using SORBS. What is your experience with SORBS? If you have alternatives, what would you suggest as a better blacklist service?"
Never ever... (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought that'd be common knowledge by now, but apparently I'm mistaken.
Re:Dunno about better (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not the providers job to delist themself (Score:2, Insightful)
but if you think your users would pressure some admin so they get back to you,
that is keeping mails hostage and not an acceptable practice.
if you do that, it is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.
Use spam assassin with more that one RBL (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep the weightings quite low since I find most of the RBLs too agressive - added to the bayes and other checks however it is quite good at pushing spam into the right destination (and for the very spammy thats
True this means I actually have to receive and process the mail rather than just arbitarily ignoring connections, but my mail server doesn't really get that much traffic as its only personal use.
Re:SORBS should be shut down. (Score:4, Insightful)
SORBS? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, getting a blacklist like this, doesn't seem to solve your problem: getting less SPAM. Do you think spammers don't have enough money to get themselves out of blacklists? Do you think that every individual legit(not SPAM) business or server checks all, of the many, blacklists to see if he's on one of them? And if they do, how many will pay the fee to get themselves of that list?
Re:Dunno about better (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it the right of the owner of a mail server freely to accept or refuse messages at will? Is it his right to define whatever rules he wishes for the acceptance or rejection of email? Is there anybody in the world who has the right to order him to do otherwise?
If the answers are 'yes', 'yes' and 'no' respectively, I submit to you that it is those who would silence SORBS, SPEWS and the like who are infringing the rights of third parties, by ordering mail admins to only use means of filtering email of which they personally approve.
Re:I can't resist (Score:2, Insightful)
I think your right on the mark though with the pharmacy analogy. We were able to implement SMTP to ESMTP quite easily so it shows people can definitely implement changes in protocols.
I also vote with people who think black hole lists are pretty much useless these days because they swallow up so many innocent people/organizations.
It would be nice to have an open source barracuda ( http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/?L=en [barracudanetworks.com] ) like box - these things really work well.
Wrong Layer (Score:2, Insightful)