Talk:Spam and Open Relay Blocking System

message: I notice there are several comments that need citations, in particular, the following:
"As of 2006, SORBS has all subnets owned by Cox Cable blacklisted, and is also well-known for blacklisting companies for simply having residential service."
As a Cox Cable user, I find this disturbing, but at the same time, have found no evidence this is true. Would the author please post a citation or some how substantiate this claim--Bill 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: I have reverted a couple of the changes made by Matt. Firstly, the change from:
"Some of the controversy arises from SORBS' policy of demanding a USD 50 payment to the Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund in order to get an IP de-listed from the system."
to:
"Some of the controversy arises from SORBS' policy of demanding a USD 50 payment a Third Party Charity or SORBS approved good cause (eg The Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund) in order to get an IP de-listed from the system."
Apart from the numerous grammatical errors in Matt's version, this edit seems a bit disingenuous considering that the Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund is the only SORBS-approved charity you can donate to. It says that SORBS accepts nominations for other charities, but the Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund has remained the only approved charity for as long as I can remember. If you're reading this Matt, I would like to formally nominate the Wikimedia Foundation as a SORBS-approved charity.
I've also reinserted the sentence stating that SORBS is often compared to an extortion racket, since this has always been the chief point of controversy surrounding the blacklist (and seems to be a pretty widely held view). Kaldari 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-removed this (see Jun 07 2007 edits section below), mainly because if something is a "widely-held view," it needs to be cited by more than one site, especially if that one site is extremely biased on the subject, otherwise it's an NPOV issue.  If you disagree, please discuss or simply add better citations.  --koder 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing 

message: Ok, an update by 205.158.160.89, I just rv'd it since its hardly NPOV, and I'm not sure of the best way it could be rewritten either.  When you start talking about 'common sense and good network resources management', the discussion becomes anything but neutral.Brian 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Bunch of things:
*Changed POV-y phrases like "extortion racket" and "suffer."  Also, iadl.org is hardly a neutral critic, as they solely target dsbls and the pages are filled with bias, thus, I added the "staunch anti-blacklist groups" portion.
*Updated delisting policy.  Last version made it seem like everyone who was ever listed had to pay the fine, which is incorrect-- only spam database entries need this, and only under certain conditions.
* The t3-v link  has issues and links to outdated pages.  The favreau.info link  is equally problematic, since it says stuff, but doesn't actually link to anything.  Consider updating these to more recent/accurate links.
*Neither google, yahoo, nor hotmail are blacklisted since they implement outgoing anti-spam measures.  I don't know whether they were listed in the past, as there was no cite for that in the first place, so I reworded it into something that is current and verifiable.  Not sure how to cite it, though-- maybe a link to an RBL checker?
*Reworded to "Criticism," added subsections "Removal procedure" and "Aggressiveness," as those seem to be the major two topics that the criticisms address.
*I figure it's safe to add Spamassassin to the "Aggressiveness" criticism, as anecdotally most large ISPs and sysadmins I work with tend to favor the RBL check as a weighted component of spam checking.  If you disagree, please let me know.
*The cites need reworking to proper formatting.  I'll deal with that later, but as for now, the links are there if anyone needs them.
*I linked to sonic.net, which isn't really scholarly, but it is pertainent to ISPs blocking port 25 as a preventitive measure to drone spam and being blacklisted.  If anyone else can find a better, neutral, non-business source for this, or simply more links to other, unrelated ISPs that also implement this policy (there are plenty) that illustrate the point, it would be ideal.  I'll look for more later.
*Changed some subject/verb agreement to work with me edits.
*McNicol didn't "win," the case was merely dismissed, as far as I know.  Then again, I don't know Australian law.  However, since the links referencing it are outdated, someone needs to verify this.  I'll also work on this later.
If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or complaints, please feel free to contact me or discuss them here.  Thanks. :) --koder 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes from Jun 7, 2007 

message: Second time reverting this.  In the context of Wikipedia, anything not done within the past few minutes can be considered 'old'.  I was told to not phrase things in terms of relative time, but rather as close to exact time as possible.  Is there any particular benefit to calling the link 'an old example'?   Bri 01:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An old example" changes 

message: We have recently had a single-use IP from Australia (likely a SORBS employee) attempting to remove criticism of SORBS systems from the article. What basis is there for removal of this properly-sourced information? Bulbous (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned in my revert change log, I investigated this.  I, personally, do not much like SORBS or the way Matthew Sullivan behaves so my initial reaction was to revert the removal of the criticisms.  However, after I spent (way too much) time investigating to be sure, I ended up deciding that the deletions were appropriate.  I looked and I think it is unlikely that the removal of the criticisms is done by someone related to SORBS, it is more likely someone with cybertrust and I could find no relation between the two organizations.  Matthew Sullivan (SORBS) and Al Iverson (dnsbl.com) have been a rather pathetic pissing match for a while now and Al has stopped updating stats on SORBS, therefore it should no longer be used to judge accuracy.  The DUHL stuff is not NPoV in my opinion.  Nothing backs up the claim that small business owners are "frequently" (vague term) listed. The reference to dnsstuff.com can now be viewed only by paying for a subscription but when I last checked, it didn't give a reason why it should not be used.  The article about how some company (mxrate) back in 2005 was listed by SORBS because of backscatter and how they did a tit-for-tat listing on their blacklist seems, well, not very useful. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response. The IP of the remover was assigned to Australia, making it more likely that it was someone related to SORBS. But that is, of course, speculation. The DUHL information is as neutral as can be expected of a criticism. If there were some balancing praise available, that could be listed, too, but the overwhelming opinion is negative. Check back through the history of this article and note that there have been several incarnations of DUHL criticism. However, the sources themselves have largely been blogs and the like. Finding legitmate sources to back up the overwhelming amounts of inadmissable criticism has been the task here. Perhaps the situation would have been better handled with a ((refimprove)) while we locate better sources for the valid criticisms? Bulbous (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the difficulty of finding reliable sources.  I have heard the "extortion" charge many many times, but try finding a reliable source that makes one.  The charges are all made in blogs or mailing list postings.  I couldn't even find a reliable source that said that lots of people think of SORBS's removal policy as being extortion.  And, yes, dial-up/dynamic IP DNSBLs of all sorts tend to generate a large number of similar complaints.  In a perverse way, the complaints document how useful the list is because there wouldn't be complaints if no one found the DNSBL useful.  I don't think using a  tag is appropriate if we have looked and can't find an improved reference.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox, it is supposed to summaries reliable sources.  I've looked, I can't find good sources, but I would be happy to see some found.  Wrs1864 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree that complaints are an indicator that *someone* finds a DUHL useful. In fact, I have yet to find anyone that defends their use of SORBS. In fact, quite the opposite - in my experience, most admins just mindlessly add SORBS to a list of blacklists they use with no clue of the grief it cause for mailservers on small ISPs until someone tells them. I will continue to look for improved references. Based on the number of non-RS references, there has to be some legimate ones out there. Bulbous (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article uses SORBS itself as reference material. This leads to a significant bias. Bulbous (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Received an announcement on the sorbs-announce mailing list that SORBS will be closing up shop soon unless there is a buyer.  Here is link -- Andy 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imminent Closure announcement 

message: This article should be deleted, or clearly indicated as a hoax from now on, until someone can offer afactual figure on how many services actually SUBSCRIBE to SORBS.
Look it up.  It's a practical joke meant to embarass ISPs that mindlessly subscribe to blocklists.  A hoax. A fantasy.  A clever trick to frighten people into donating to charity.  There is absolutely no way a person could take the SORBS site seriously, or the Matt Sullivan myspace identity, it appears to be made up of paranoid blog posts and pictures copped from other parts of the internet.  It's fantasy.  Not a single source referenced so far proves otherwise, my source barely does, it's not much more reliable than the others.
Anyone can start a blocklist and pretend it's maintained by more than one person, and used by actual companies for more than the few seconds it takes to realize it's a nerdy in-joke.
We need factual sources.  That means not a fake site by Sullivan himself, like the court case documents, or the complete nonsense and heresay of the other sources. The one I sourced is the only one written by someone who isn't delusional, and by the way, disproving complete B.S. with fact-checking is not 'bias', and although it isn't well sourced itself, it's the only one anybody who's looked up every page (there aren't many) that mention SORBs would take seriously if they knew anything about computers.
the only people who should edit this article from now on are REAL people experienced with the matter and similar ones, not random editors like us who look up the very small number of articles and websites that mention it, and not Sullivan himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneTwoThreeLaLaLa (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dean, seriously, stop vandalizing articles and trying to make it seem like IADL is more then just your personal vandetta against SORBS and Michelle Sullivan.  I find it ironic that you consider yourself and the IADL as 'unbiased' when you create so much contraversy and disruption whereever you go. Brielle (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the IADL writeup seems to be pretty accurate about SORBS being no more than a scam service: a small agency I know recently got listed on SORBS over a "Dynamic IP" issue that was utterly nonsensical. The tech support people at both the agency's ISP, which does mostly corporate servicing, and their well-regarded spam protection service ended up saying the same thing about SORBS that IADL did: that it's mostly a scam service and that the only way to get off their list is to pay them off. The ISP tech even recommended to report SORBS on their Abuse form. FYI for what it's worth. 209.6.39.87 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SORBS being a 'scam' is nothing but an opinion, rather then a fact.  I've dealt with SORBS on more then enough occasions to know they aren't a scam, and I've never had any issues with them.  Further, and this has been pointed out time and time again, that noone is holding a gun to your head telling you to use SORBS or die. Want some proof that IADL is nothing but a personal attack?  Dean threatened to 'write me up' on the IADL after I told him to stop spamming me with his useless banter via e-mail.  I had to list him in the AHBL and in my personal blocklist due to the fact he just wouldn't respect my wish (and other people's wishes) to be left out of his personal attacks and unwanted yammering.  I don't like having to deal with people that way, but when you step over the line and make legal threats at me because I told you to stop harassing me, what choice do I have? Brielle (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  section that I added 

message: Removed the very bias opinions of Mr Steve Atkins (word to the wise).
Removed the section about the Spam database removal procedure as it is completely inaccurate following the removal of the SORBS 'fine' in October 2010.
Removed the other very bias word to the wise reference regarding 'no real improvement in responsiveness' due to lack of evidence. 
I expect one or both will be re-instated by the SORBS haters out there, maybe an admin can lock the entry for a while?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.52.8.13 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Sullivan, the usual semi-protection would in fact keep unregistered ISPs like you from editing the article about your own enterprise. I don't think you'd want this, since you seem to prefer hiding in incognito. Not that an Australian IP wouldn't be revealing enough... -- megA (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 3 sections. 

message: I see the body of the article mentions a Matthew Sullivan, while the infobox to the right mentions a Michelle Sullivan. 91.126.134.10 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's the actual owner/founder of SORBS? 

message: Apparently SORBS is about to shut down, e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sorbs_well-its-the-end-of-an-era-ive-just-been-activity-7202108788026335233-45G2
Does anybody have a more official source? Mnalis (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutdown in 2024?