> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:48:10PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote: > > This is why Spamcop's collateral damage is much lower than others in > > that it does not block entire ranges, and which is why it is suitable > > for an ISP or Hosting company to use. > > both of the above assertions are false. > > spamcop does NOT have lower (let alone "much lower") collateral damage > than other RBL's - in fact, it has a MUCH HIGHER level of collateral > damage than professionally run RBLs. > > Nor is it at all suitable for use by ISP or hosting companies. at best, > it might be suitable for use by a hobbyist who didn't care much about > collateral damage.
It would be useful if you backed up your point with some sort of evidence or proof. My point is that the collateral damage is lower, due to the fact that entire IP ranges are not blocked, and hence it is useful for hosting companies and ISPs. What is your's? What fact do you have to prove otherwise? How does blocking entire IP ranges like other RBLs lower collateral damage? Sincerely, Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
