GFI/SORBS considered harmful

Act 1 • Act 2 • Intermezzo • Act 3 • Act 4 • Act 5
Management Summary, Redistributable Documents and Links
A little over a year ago the SORBS blacklist was purchased by GFI Software. I had fairly high hopes that it would improve significantly, start behaving with some level of professionalism and competence and become a useful data source, in much the same way that the SpamCop blacklist turned into an accurate, professionally run source of data after they transitioned from being a volunteer run blacklist to a service of IronPort.
GFI’s statement a year ago was:

GFI is now actively developing plans for the future of SORBS, including SORBS 2.0 and methods to improve SORBS data and responsiveness.

They’ve had a year to do that, so how have they done? Yesterday, my good friend Delivery Kitty reminded me to take a look at GFI/SORBS. Today responsiveness. Tomorrow, data quality.
Responsiveness
I don’t send any email other than personal email myself, and I don’t represent large email senders in any professional capacity, so I don’t have much personal experience to go on (edit, well until I tried to use the GFI/SORBS website to research tomorrow’s post, anyway). So I did some informal polling, looking on twitter, and asking some friends in the industry.
The much-repeated story is that there’s been no real improvement in responsiveness – tickets are routinely ignored, or not responded to for months, and when they are responded to the responses are anything but helpful. Also, any mistake or problem tends to be blamed on “a DDoS”, even those issues that are obviously human error, poor database design or other systemic issues.
One senior sysadmin on GFI/SORBS’ handling of their recent batch of false positives:

There’s a huge screwup that has been visible in their public-facing production systems for 3 days, doing harm to their users’ mail flows.  The visible evidence says to me that someone at SORBS knows there’s a problem, and has known for at least a couple of days. And still, there has been no action to really repair the damage or even acknowledge it. SORBS is publishing lies in its zones, and while I can tolerate the occasional little “oops” that is handled swiftly and maturely, this is not such an incident.

Random tweet:

Finally got SORBS to delist my IP addresses…only took three months!!

Abuse specialist from a large mailing list operator:

Rather than operating on “Internet time,” SORBS seems to work on “Redneck time,” that is, they’ll get around to it when they get a round tuit.

Senior Security Engineer at a major regional US broadband provider:

SORBS uses bellicose, immature, and incompetent volunteers who are more interested in arguing the 1996 view that all spam is the senders fault regardless than in delisting ip addresses that were wrongly listed.

And a final quote that, I think, shows that frustration with SORBS responsiveness has gone from actual concern into black humor:

Imagine SORBS responses in Dalek voice:
DNS TTL not high enough!  Exterminate!
Didn’t fill out the form!  Exterminate!
Dynamic IP according to our records!  Exterminate!
We’re humble volunteers!  EXTERMINATE!!!!!!!!!

(Several of the people who gave me those quotes asked me explicitly not to mention them, or their employers, by name due to a history of harassment-by-false-blacklisting of people who speak publicly about GFI/SORBS practices. So I’ve tried to remove all the identifying information from all the quotes.)
Digging into the data quality issues takes a little longer, so that’s for tomorrow.

Preferences pages
GFI/SORBS considered harmful, part 2

Related Posts

I'm on a blocklist! HELP!

Recently, an abuse desk rep asked what to do when customers were complaining about being assigned an IP address located on a blocklist. Because not every blocklist actually affects mail delivery it’s helpful to identify if the listing is causing a problem before diving in and trying to resolve the issue.

Read More

Legitimate mail in spamfilters

It can be difficult and frustrating for a sender to understand they whys and wherefores of spam filtering. Clearly the sender is not spamming, so why is their mail getting caught in spam filters?
I have a client that goes through this frustration on rare occasions. They send well crafted, fun, engaging content that their users really want. They have a solid reputation at the ISPs and their inbox stats are always above 98%. Very, very occasionally, though, they will see some filtering difficulties at Postini. It’s sad for all of us because Postini doesn’t tell us enough about what they’re doing to understand what my client is doing to trigger the filters. They get frustrated because they don’t know what’s going wrong; I get frustrated because I can’t really help them, and I’m sure their recipients are frustrated because they don’t get their wanted mail.
Why do a lot of filter vendors not communicate back to listees? Because not all senders are like my clients. Some senders send mail that recipients can take or leave. If the newsletter shows up in their inbox they may read it. If the ad gets in front of their face, they may click through. But, if the mail doesn’t show up, they don’t care. They certainly aren’t going to look for the mail in their bulk folder. Other senders send mail that users really don’t want. It is, flat out, spam.
The thing is, all these senders describe themselves as legitimate email marketers. They harvest addresses, they purchase lists, they send mail to spamtraps, and they still don’t describe themselves as spammers. Some of them have even ended up in court for violating various anti-spam laws and they still claim they’re not spammers.
Senders are competing with spammers for bandwidth and resources at the ISPs, they’re competing for postmaster attention at the ISPs and they’re competing for eyeballs in crowded inboxes.
It’s the sheer volume of spam and the crafty evilness of spammers that drives the constant change and improvement in spamfilters. It’s tough to keep up with the spamfilters because they’re trying to keep up with the spammers. And the spammers are continually looking for new ways to exploit recipients.
It can be a challenge to send relevant, engaging email while dealing with spamfilters and ISPs. But that’s what makes this job so much fun.

Read More

It's not illegal to block mail

My post “We’re going to party like it’s 1996” is still getting a lot of comments from people. Based on the comments, either people aren’t reading or my premise wasn’t clear.
Back in 1996 the first lawsuits were brought against ISPs to stop ISPs from blocking email. These suits were failures. Since that time, other senders have attempted to sue ISPs and lost. Laws have been written protecting the rights of the ISPs to block content they deem to be harmful.
Dela says that he was just attempting to open up a conversation, but I don’t see what he thinks the  conversation is. That ISPs shouldn’t block mail their customers want? Sure, OK. We’re agreed on that. Now, define what mail recipients want. I want what mail I want, not what someone else decides I might want.
Marketers need to get over the belief that they own end users mailboxes and that they have some right to send mail to people. You don’t.
When marketers actually start sending wanted mail, to people who actually subscribe – not just make a purchase, or register online or happen to have an easily discoverable email address – then perhaps marketers will have some standing to claim they are being treated illegally. Until and unless that happens, the ISPs are well within their rights to block mail that their users don’t want.

Read More