Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Renaud Allard <renaud@???> (Sa 06 Jan 2007 00:40:50 CET):
>>
>> Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>
>>> You are *listed*. If your listing doesn't meet SORBS' criteria,
>>> there's a removal form which doesn't require registration (I just
>>> checked). They accept de-listing requests from registered netblock
>>> owners or end-users, and process them automatically if the rDNS
>>> matches Matt's suggested naming conventions. Sounds like a solid
>>> process to me - have you had problems with it?
>> I had some clients that were awarded static IPs from the most used ISP
>> in Belgium, and these IP were just blacklisted by SORBS as DUL. They may
>> have been DUL IPs in the past, and I see no reason why they shouldn't.
>> The problem is they were still blacklisted on SORBS as DUL in the time
>
> Hm, what I understand is: static IPs are listed if they are designated
> to residential users. (?? do I use the right words?) Here in .de you
> can get a static IP on your DSL for almost no money. The connected
> systems are of about the same "quality" as for dynamic connected DSL.
>
> This way I see some sense in listing theses addresses per default and
> ask for a manual delisting procedure.
>
Yes and no. These addresses may be assigned to small or medium
businesses that just don't need more than 1 IP and so have not much
incentives to pay more for nothing. The line "quality" may be the same
as "advanced" dynamic users. While they could be seen like dynamic
users, there is no reason to do so as people asking for a fixed IP are
generally the ones who intend to run a mail server and their IP is _not_
dynamic.
I must admit that if the mail admin for that company is not smart enough
to ask for the change of the reverse DNS to something meaningful like
mail.domain.tld instead of 123.456.123.345.my.isp.com they deserve to be
present in a blacklist as a dynamic user would be (and spamassassin
>3.1.5 will give them a high score anyway). But, the fact is the IP is a
fixed one, so why should it be present in a DUL blacklist? These lists
are meant to only list dynamic users, not cheap fixed users.
To speak for SORBS, they have almost no way to know whether an IP is
dynamic or static in RIPE (and others). But, in this case, they
shouldn't list as dynamic IPs the ones they are not certain of their
"dynamism". Should it be the job of ISP to warn them? I don't think so
because warning all lists would be a tremendous and useless work. Well,
maybe ISPs should show in the whois whether an IP is static or dynamic,
but it is not mandatory for the moment.
As a matter of fact, I just think DUL lists cannot be trusted because
people doing them almost have no means to verify if an IP is dynamic or
static.
