We recently received a large allocation of IP addresses from ARIN and, to our chagrin, the block is listed on SORBS's list as dynamic IP space — a whole
Obviously, as a hosting company we assign a static to each VPS we provision. Our IP allocations are is in no way dynamic; customers may request an IP address change, but we don't receive many such requests. We always ask for justification, and the requests we approve are typically performed on a "one time only" basis. Jed continues:
I approached SORBS about the issue via their automatic contact system. It has been nearly two weeks since their "bot" replied to me and informed me that most of the block was not eligible for delisting due to the naming convention in our reverse DNS PTRs. We use:
liXXX-YYY.members.linode.com
What's wrong with that? It "looks" dynamic, they say.
Despite our attempts to reach out to SORBS, explain our position, and get our IP space delisted, we've being told that we must change our reverse DNS naming scheme across our entire network to be considered for delisting. Needless to say, we consider this a ridiculous proposition.
Our primary concern is that mail administrators are using SORBS to blindly drop mail based on the false "dynamic IP" assertion. Although we would consider such a practice to be irresponsible from an administrator's standpoint, this is an issue that's been raised by some of our customers, and we're concerned about the effect it may be having on their ability to deliver legitimate mail. We've always taken an aggressive stance against anything resembling spammy behavior on our network; we're all I.T. veterans, we all despise spam, and we promptly handle any reports of abuse related to our network. It's distressing to see this situation going unresolved. What advice do members of the Slashdot community have on this topic?"
Look at it from their point of view - all they want to do is win their games, too. The only difference is, instead of bet/no bet, their choice is bar/don't bar from the premises.
And how much of that was cherry-picking?
If the defense's lawyer was worth his salt, this was something the jury decided, as it's a question of fact. So before you start complaining about such things, get the actual court documents, see if the defense even bothered to raise this point (if you don't argue a point, you concede it, after all), and if so, how it played out.
Speculating on how an entire trial went on from a few pages worth of an article in the BBC is pointless; neither of us have seen enough to even begin to estimate whether the prosecution was placing things out of context and distorting their meaning as you suggest.
Happiness is twin floppies.
