You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by n....@gmail.com on 2010/04/30 12:46:28 UTC
[OT] was SORBS
Here's the chuckle....
Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
following message for <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
--======-- Original Message Headers Follow --======--
> Received: from snakepit.bleh (snakepit.bleh [192.168.2.32])
> by blue-canoe.org.uk (envelope-sender <ni...@blue-canoe.com>) with ESMTPA (MTSPro MTSSmtp 1.61)
> for <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:10 +0100
> From: Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>
> To: SpamAssassin <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> Subject: [OT] Was SORBS
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:09 +0100
> Organization: Blue Canoe Networks
> Message-ID: <kf...@blue-canoe.net>
> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Abuse-Report-URL: http://www.blue-canoe.net/abuse
> X-Envelope-Sender: <ni...@blue-canoe.com>
> X-Envelope-Receiver: <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
>
Here's my message :-D
Hi All,
First a big thanks to all those who offered advice and actively
assisted in getting my SORBS problem resolved.
BT have admitted they screwed things up with SORBS a while ago and, at
least on an individual level, regret that. That aside, they have
worked hard and with patience and professionalism to help me get this
resolved.
For those of you with BT accounts that find yourself in the same
situation, give me a shout and I'll happily pass on the info for the
people and departments I worked with... Someone may read the archives
:-D
Once again, thanks one and all for your help and support (and to the
list admins for not yelling at me to say this had nothing to do with
SA :-D)
Cheers all
Nigel
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:48:49 +0100, "corpus.defero"
<co...@idnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 17:19 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, "corpus.defero"
>> <co...@idnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> >
>> >> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
>> >> quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
>> >> in setting that up in Cyprus.
>> >
>> >> Nigel
>> >Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
>> >agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
>> >someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
>> >over BT.
>> >
>> Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
>> After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
>> shebang home and now run it from my own server room.
>There is nothing wrong with that - it makes good environmental sense as
>well as security sense.
>>
>> BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
>> exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.
>Having spent 16 years with them I know the ins and outs. Openreach were
>not allowed to show any favouritism to BT customers and went out of
>their way for 'other licensed operators'. Many BT folk of X years
>service found the notion of Openreach rather unpalatable and went out of
>their way to be awkward to native BT customers. I'm not sure if that
>attitude subset still exists but there really was an attitude towards
>all things BT. But good on your for sticking with them.
>>
>> If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
>> 'have you re-booted your router' etc.
>That depends on who you go with. People like Zen, IDNET, aaisp, Newnet
>are actually much better than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
>much more knowledgeable. This SORBS issue would not even be an issue
>with them as they had the brains to sort out their space - rather than
>just try and cluelessly blindmug sell it so SOHO's.
>>
>> Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
>> happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
>> that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
>> good friends).
>I admire the spirit and good luck with it. If the Lib Dems win the
>election they may find a whole in their mad ideas to offer treatment for
>those with delusional misguided belief in BT syndrome. (DMBBT).
>>
>> IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
>> for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.
>You knew that would happen. Being a BT customer is nearly as bad as
>being a spammer.... {joke} have a good weekend.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Nigel
>
The world 'aint perfect, but we work with what we have. I'm just happy
it's sorted. With luck anyone that hits similar issues will pick up on
this and yell.
I may take a line or two off different suppliers to se how close
promises and actuality meet.
Best to all
Nigel
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 17:19 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, "corpus.defero"
> <co...@idnet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> >
> >> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
> >> quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
> >> in setting that up in Cyprus.
> >
> >> Nigel
> >Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
> >agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
> >someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
> >over BT.
> >
> Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
> After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
> shebang home and now run it from my own server room.
There is nothing wrong with that - it makes good environmental sense as
well as security sense.
>
> BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
> exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.
Having spent 16 years with them I know the ins and outs. Openreach were
not allowed to show any favouritism to BT customers and went out of
their way for 'other licensed operators'. Many BT folk of X years
service found the notion of Openreach rather unpalatable and went out of
their way to be awkward to native BT customers. I'm not sure if that
attitude subset still exists but there really was an attitude towards
all things BT. But good on your for sticking with them.
>
> If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
> 'have you re-booted your router' etc.
That depends on who you go with. People like Zen, IDNET, aaisp, Newnet
are actually much better than BT at dealing with issues - and usually
much more knowledgeable. This SORBS issue would not even be an issue
with them as they had the brains to sort out their space - rather than
just try and cluelessly blindmug sell it so SOHO's.
>
> Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
> happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
> that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
> good friends).
I admire the spirit and good luck with it. If the Lib Dems win the
election they may find a whole in their mad ideas to offer treatment for
those with delusional misguided belief in BT syndrome. (DMBBT).
>
> IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
> for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.
You knew that would happen. Being a BT customer is nearly as bad as
being a spammer.... {joke} have a good weekend.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nigel
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:57 +0100, "corpus.defero"
<co...@idnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>
>> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
>> quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
>> in setting that up in Cyprus.
>
>> Nigel
>Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
>agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
>someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
>over BT.
>
Fair point. I live in a small village right on the end of a spur.
After being burgled at my town offices I moved the whole dammed
shebang home and now run it from my own server room.
BT may not be the best, but they (or rather OpenReach) own the lines,
exchange and pretty much all else... plus they have helped.
If I go through a third party I end up with at least one more level of
'have you re-booted your router' etc.
Bottom line, I'd rather solve a problem than work round it. As it
happens I have a second IP off the range that I could have used, but
that would have meant a lot of DNS work etc (and DNS and I are not
good friends).
IMHO solving is better than blaming. My original post was a request
for advice and help. I got a lot of both... plus a lot of opinion.
Kind regards
Nigel
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "--[ UxBoD ]--" <ux...@splatnix.net>.
----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>
> > We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
> > quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was
> > involved in setting that up in Cyprus.
>
> > Nigel
> Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the
> BTW agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only
> with someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just
> pee's over BT.
I was with IDNET and they were awesome. Only reason why I moved to Xilo was to lower my monthly costs. C&W unbundled has been really good. If cost is not a factor I would always recommend IDNET over anybody else! They do still manage my BT line :)
--
Thanks, Phil
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:50 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
> quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
> in setting that up in Cyprus.
> Nigel
Is there such a thing? I appreciate many are not unbundled, but the BTW
agreement means you should have no problems getting a wires-only with
someone like Zen, IDNET or Newnet. Believe me, the service just pee's
over BT.
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing,
Really? Over ten years ago when I lived in the UK, my first provider
was Nildram, I'm sure they didn't run the local exchange. Same here in
Switzerland - most of the fibre and copper belongs to Swisscom, then
Sunrise and Cablecom, but there are many companies who will sell you
the connectivity based on a resale of the copper/fibre.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
> quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
> in setting that up in Cyprus.
How about a cheap hosted VPS to handle your outbound mail? If that's all
it's doing then you don't need all that much oomph.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual liberties are always "loopholes" to absolute authority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 days until the 65th anniversary of VE day
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:22:16 +0100, Martin Gregorie
<ma...@gregorie.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
>> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
>> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
>>
>However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
>his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
>copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
>as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
>connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
>didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
>
>The OP can do exactly what I did.
>
>Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
>locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
>your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?
>
>
>Martin
>
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing, well not
quite, I could go CoLo... hmmm maybe not, or satellite, I was involved
in setting that up in Cyprus.
I guess the bottom line is that this is always going to be an issue
and it's as much to do with how you deal with your upline suppliers as
how you deal with the lists (rbl etc).
I may not agree with them all on an individual basis, but life is what
it is, I have to work within the constraints imposed on me.
I cannot complain about SORBS, though I did, they have a fixed set of
rules. If I or my upline provider fails.. well, such is life. BT for
what it's worth are very aware of their market and the issues, with
luck they and SORBS will open a dialogue.
As admins we face and deal with issues every day, sometimes it's nice
to know that others out there are listening and, where they can,
acting.
I have a lot of karma to repay :-D Now, if the SA list would let me
post from 'home'. I'd be copacetic :-D
All the best
Nigel
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, "Martin Gregorie" <ma...@gregorie.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> >> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
> >> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
> >> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
> >>
> > However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
> > his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
> > copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
> > as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
> > connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
> > didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
> >
> > The OP can do exactly what I did.
> >
> > Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
> > locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
> > your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?
>
> For me, it was the case the last time I renegotiated my contract for my
> business-class broadband at home. Short of bringing in a T1 at
> $600-$1000/month, I had exactly one choice for a provider that would provide
> me with a static /29 and a SWIP record - the monopoly cable provider. In
> another year or so I'll see if the monopoly POTS provider can provide the
> service I need - they promise the moon in their advertisements but balk
> really fast when you start to ask specific, tangible questions.
I have a number of friends who concur that the US small-business
broadband scene is seriously poor so I feel your pain. I can remember
the hassle one guy had trying to get a static IP out of Warners. They
wanted to up his subscription by a factor of three.
In the UK we are really lucky in most cases that we can pick and choose
good providers and change fairly easily without it costing an arm and a
leg.
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>.
On 4/30/10 8:22 AM, "Martin Gregorie" <ma...@gregorie.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
>> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
>> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
>>
> However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
> his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
> copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
> as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
> connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
> didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
>
> The OP can do exactly what I did.
>
> Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
> locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
> your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?
For me, it was the case the last time I renegotiated my contract for my
business-class broadband at home. Short of bringing in a T1 at
$600-$1000/month, I had exactly one choice for a provider that would provide
me with a static /29 and a SWIP record - the monopoly cable provider. In
another year or so I'll see if the monopoly POTS provider can provide the
service I need - they promise the moon in their advertisements but balk
really fast when you start to ask specific, tangible questions.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
>
However, that doesn't apply to the OP, who is using British Telecom as
his ISP. My broadband connection goes through the local BT exchange and
copper after that, but BT has never been my ISP. I initially used Demon
as my ISP, switching to my current ISP (who subcontract broadband
connectivity to a third party, *not* BT) when I discovered that Demon
didn't offer a suitable package that included domain registration.
The OP can do exactly what I did.
Out of pure curiosity, what is there about the broadband set-up in your
locality that could prevent you from doing something similar? Are both
your broadband provider and your ISP monopolies?
Martin
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
The choice of ISP for your client connection is unrelated to the
choice of ISP for your outgoing email. You always have the option of
renting a server on the net and sending the email from there. There
are many very cost effective plans available. Use a low cost server
with a static IP on the net to relay mail from your dynamic addresses.
> Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
> something so false-positivity as a db for "dynamic" ip's is
> irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points and
> do a scan but an outright rejection?
I hard reject all incoming mail from addresses identified as belonging
to dynamic address pools.
Bob
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
corpus.defero wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> corpus.defero wrote:
>>
>> > 2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
>> > choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
>>
>> Same thing.
>>
>>
>> /Per Jessen, Zürich
>>
> Key point is the admin has made a choice and is aware of that.
Agree.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> corpus.defero wrote:
>
> > 2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
> > choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
>
> Same thing.
>
>
> /Per Jessen, Zürich
>
Key point is the admin has made a choice and is aware of that. On the
other hand they may be using SORBS in SA as part of a score shifter -
nothing more. The OP can ask the recipient to whitelist his IP if he has
a trading relationship with them. If not, then chances are his mail is
unsolicited regardless of his SORBS listing.
It's just a point of view - nothing more.
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
corpus.defero wrote:
> 2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
> choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
Same thing.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frankcom@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the chuckle....
> > >
> > > Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
> > > following message for <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
> > >
> > > Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
> > > http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
> > this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
> > with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
> > later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
> > competent.
> >
> >
>
> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
>
> Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
> something so false-positivity as a db for "dynamic" ip's is
> irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points
> and do a scan but an outright rejection?
>
> -lee
>
Without wishing to come accross rude. I accept your points as they are,
in part, valid. But;
1. In this case the OP has a choice and has elected to trust a
notoriously awful former state owned ISP to deal with it.
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level. Doing so they are usually
well aware of the caveats of using SORBS.
3. This is all irrelevant to the Spamassassin list. Like I say there may
be some opinion here, there may be mixed advice here, but there is no
resolution or listening ear here.
Michelle 'listens' to NANAE and SPAM-L last time I checked, but again
it's an issue for BT to deal with. The fact the OP has to go around
chasing this is a clear indication of failure of his ISP. It's blunt,
but it's really that simple.
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by Lee Dilkie <Le...@Dilkie.com>.
On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frankcom@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Here's the chuckle....
>>
>> Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
>> following message for <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
>>
>> Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
>> http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
>>
>>
>
> The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
> this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
> with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
> later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
> competent.
>
>
First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
something so false-positivity as a db for "dynamic" ip's is
irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points and
do a scan but an outright rejection?
-lee
Re: [OT] was SORBS
Posted by "corpus.defero" <co...@idnet.com>.
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frankcom@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's the chuckle....
>
> Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
> following message for <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
>
> Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
> http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
>
And has it taken you all that time to get BT to add this to their whois:
descr: Single Static IP Addresses
Man, that is quality service.....
I take it you've spoken with....>
phone: +44 207 777 7766
fax-no: +44 1524 34523
e-mail: steve.r.wright@bt.com
e-mail: abuse@bt.net
remarks: trouble: 1st Line Support
remarks: Please send delisting issues to btnetdns@bt.net
...> and they have actually spoken with SORBS?
The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
competent.
You may fair better taking this to the SPAM-L mailing list where you may
find someone that actually cares. Here you will only get generic opinion
and nothing tangible to help.
Spam-l mailing list - http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-l