[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 1 Dec 2006 at 16:40, Andrew Macpherson wrote: > > >> One should also remove Spamcop. It has an unverified hair-trigger, and >> documents itself as being unsuitable for use in a mail-filter context >> > > I agree, but many may not, and I think this highlights the dangers of putting > a list of > 'recommended' DNSBLs up.
Well, the wiki lists it as an "aggressive" DNSBL, and has a description and warning in red text about using it with 2+ hits. I am trying to put details like this in this wiki article that you don't find in other DNSBL lists. Hopefully this one will actually be more useful than lists I have tried to use in the past. Too add to this debate: SpamCop doesn't have an unverified hair-trigger. It takes *multiple* reports to get added to the SCBL list. The more reports, the longer the addition holds before a timed expiration removes it. It is however being manipulated by its users, and because of that it is sporadically miss-used. I have actually tested this by reporting test domains to the SCBL. Because there were no other reports from other people, the IPs never got added. And - if free services like Gmail would list the originator's IP in the headers (instead of stripping it for privacy), SpamCop would block that IP instead of Gmail's server. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
