The proprietor of controversial anti-spam blacklisting concern SORBS, or Spam and Open Relay Blocking System, has posted a note on her site claiming the Australia-based service is likely soon to shut down.
Though e-mail marketing and deliverability circles are buzzing with the news, according to some experts, it is unclear what, if any, effect a SORBS shutdown would have on most marketers.
“It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent closure of SORBS,” said the post signed by Michelle Sullivan, previously known as Matthew Sullivan. “The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate the hosting contract.”
Sullivan continued: “I have been forced in to this announcement. SORBS is officially ‘For Sale’ should anyone wish to purchase it as a going concern, but failing that and failing to find alternative hosting for a 42RU rack in the Brisbane area of Queensland Australia SORBS will be shutting down permanently in 28 days, on 20th July 2009 at 12 noon.”
According to one expert who asked not to be named in this piece, Sullivan’s request for a “42RU rack” is a request for an incredible amount of server space that will be difficult to meet.
However, in an e-mail exchange with this newsletter yesterday, Sullivan claimed the likelihood of a shutdown is: “Less likely than yesterday, there have been at least 30 offers of hosting and purchase, two of which are from large appliance vendors.”
Like the all-volunteer anti-spam group Spamhaus, SORBS maintains a number of lists of what it deems to be sources of spam. E-mail systems administrators can reference these lists to help them determine if e-mail coming into their systems is likely to be spam.
However, SORBS is far more controversial than Spamhaus.
A Google search on June 22 for “SORBS sucks”—in quotes to make sure only references to that exact phrase appear—brought back 3,280 results. Clicking on a random selection of the results revealed tales of people claiming to have been unjustly listed by SORBS and being unable to reach anyone to resolve the problem.
To be fair, a June 22 search on Google for “Spamhaus sucks” brought back 2,130 results.
In any case, one reason SORBS is controversial is its spam-blacklist delisting policy. In order to get a listing removed, the mailer must pay $50 to a charity for each alleged unsolicited e-mail SORBS has collected from the mailer.
According to copy on SORBS.net, in order to get delisted from its spam database, “if you are really not a spammer, or you are truly reformed, de-listing is relatively easy, and you can choose one of two options:
· Donate US$50 to a charity or trust approved by, and not connected with, SORBS for each spam received related to the listing. This is referred to as the SORBS 'fine'.
· Wait for a period of 1 year for each spam received related to the listing (e.g. if 3 spams were received, wait 3 years).”
SORBS’ detractors say the requirement is extortion. Sullivan denies this assertion.
“It is not extortion because use of SORBS is voluntary,” she wrote, referring to the fact that ISPs voluntarily decide whether or not to block mailers’ messages based on a SORBS listing.
The only charity currently listed as approved on SORBS is the “Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund.” SORBS directs mailers who want to be delisted to make payments directly to an e-mail address with McNicol’s name in it through PayPal.
Copy on the site also says SORBS will consider other charities on a case-by-case basis.
McNicol became an anti-spammer cause celeb when he was sued in June 2002 by Australian direct marketer T3 Direct, which alleged that McNicol’s actions got T3's IP addresses listed on the now defunct anti-spam site Spam Prevention Early Warning System, or SPEWS.org.
McNicol was believed to be the first individual sued by a marketer as the result of a listing on an anti-spam blacklisting site. The suit was dismissed in October 2002.
According to Sullivan, money to the fund now goes t help anti-spam fighters who are sued by spammers and that it’s a legally registered charter.
McNicol wrote in an e-mail exchange with this newsletter that other charities were once listed on SORBS, but were removed to protect them from harassment.
“The other charity options were taken off their Web site because they were often subject to abuse and became spammer targets as they were seen to support SORBS,” he wrote. “To be honest it has been more of pain in the butt than of any great value to anyone because, as you can imagine, spammers are a dishonest bunch and quite often make a donation only to lodge a complaint with PayPal to get the money back after they have been delisted.”
Meanwhile, according to some experts, most major inbox providers don’t use SORBS’ anti-spam block list—or at least not solely—so being placed on it may have little effect.
“SORBS is not used by any of the top 100 ISPs in the U.S.,” said one expert who asked to remain anonymous.
According to Sullivan, this assertion is “total rubbish. I really don't know which ISPs use SORBS and which don't, but I can tell you that Microsoft and Google use SORBS, as has been evidenced by many. Many ISPs use SORBS as one part of their spam filtering systems, rather than *the* spam filtering system.”
Also, the anti-spam application SpamAssassin reportedly uses SORBS as one part of a large scoring system to identify probable unsolicited e-mail.
However, multiple sources interviewed for this piece said they know of at least one major e-mail service provider whose servers have been listed by SORBS and that it has reported no deliverability problems as a result.
Moreover, truly permission-based e-mailers have little to fear from any anti-spam blacklist.
