Why are SORBS listing timestamps missing and how to identify senders on SORBS?

Key findings

• Timestamp disappearance: Following recent maintenance, SORBS has either displayed incorrect timestamps or removed them entirely from their listings, impacting diagnostic efforts.
• Troubleshooting difficulty: The lack of precise timestamp data makes it nearly impossible to identify which specific email campaign or user activity led to a blocklist event. This is especially true for those dealing with shared email infrastructure.
• Unintended consequence: Initial reports from SORBS indicated that the missing timestamps were an unintended side effect of their maintenance and are expected to be rectified.

Key considerations

• Alternative identification methods: When timestamps are unavailable, senders must resort to other means of identification, such as requesting redacted header information directly from SORBS by opening a support ticket.
• Proactive monitoring: Implement robust internal logging of email sends, including timestamps, IP addresses, and user information. This data is invaluable for cross-referencing against blacklist entries, even without public timestamps.
• Understanding SORBS lists: Familiarize yourself with the various SORBS lists (e.g., SPAM, ZOMBIE) and their criteria. This knowledge helps in understanding the type of activity that triggered the listing. More information can be found on MailMonitor's guide on delisting.

Key opinions

• Impact on diagnostics: Marketers frequently use SORBS timestamps to identify the specific email send that triggered a blocklisting. Without them, this diagnostic step is severely hampered.
• Increased workload: The absence of timestamps necessitates more manual effort, such as opening support tickets with SORBS to obtain necessary information, increasing the time to resolution for deliverability issues.
• Frustration with data gaps: The community expresses concern about the unintentional loss of crucial data points, as it hinders their ability to quickly address and resolve blocklist entries.

Key considerations

• Internal log analysis: Focus on meticulously logging all outgoing email activity with precise timestamps, recipient, and sender details. This internal data becomes the primary source for identifying hits on spam traps or problematic sends.
• Engaging SORBS support: Actively use SORBS's support channels to request additional information, such as redacted email headers, when dealing with a listing, especially if using shared IPs.
• Monitoring bounce messages: Review bounce messages carefully, as they often contain details about the blocklist hit, including the specific SORBS list (e.g., SBL, XBL) and sometimes even the time of the bounce, which can indirectly help pinpoint the event.

Key opinions

• Technical root cause: Experts suggest the timestamp issue might stem from backend database problems, such as complexities with PostgreSQL or handling time zones correctly, which are common challenges in large systems.
• System reliability: The incident underscores the importance of robust backend systems for blocklists, as even minor bugs can significantly impact the ability of senders to troubleshoot and maintain deliverability. This is crucial for topics like email authentication.
• Data transparency: While blocklists aim to prevent spam, the removal of diagnostic data can inadvertently harm legitimate senders' ability to self-correct, emphasizing the need for transparent listing information.

Key considerations

• Internal data correlation: Even without SORBS timestamps, internal logging and meticulous record-keeping of email sending patterns remain paramount. This allows for correlation with the approximate time of a blocklist event.
• Leveraging other indicators: If timestamps are missing, look for other indicators provided by SORBS or in bounce messages, such as the specific list (e.g., SBL, XBL) or a general time frame. This can help diagnose an IP blocklist.
• Proactive system checks: Regularly check your IP and domain against SORBS and other major blocklists (see SpamResource for common blocklists). Early detection, even without precise timestamps, can mitigate larger deliverability issues.

Key findings

• Importance of headers: Email headers contain vital routing and authentication information (like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC alignment) that can help trace the origin of an email, even without blocklist timestamps.
• Server log analysis: Server logs capture timestamps of every email transaction, which are critical for correlating internal sending activity with external blocklist events when public data is missing.
• RFC compliance vs. reality: While RFCs define email standards, real-world implementations by services like SORBS can sometimes deviate or encounter unforeseen issues, leading to data inconsistencies.

Key considerations

• Automated log parsing: Implement automated systems for parsing and analyzing email server logs. This allows for quick identification of unusual sending patterns or high bounce rates around the time of a blocklist event.
• Header analysis tools: Utilize online tools or internal scripts to analyze full email headers. This can reveal the complete path an email took, including intermediate IPs and server timestamps, aiding in sender identification. Mockcertified Blog offers tips for detecting masked IP addresses.
• Understanding DNSBL mechanics: A deeper understanding of how DNS-based Blackhole Lists (DNSBLs) function can inform troubleshooting strategies, even when specific data points are missing.