OT: Spamcop BL - good or dangerous?

[Res]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight Solutions wrote:

>> SpamCop does not block legitimate servers. I use SpamCop myself.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. SpamCop users blatantly report
> every and any e-mail they receive even double opt-in mailing lists etc.
> It is an extremely dangerous BL to use if you wish to get legitimate e-mail.

no ones ever complained here, and besides, if they get comemrcial shit 
from some wanker when they never asked for it, then thats spam = legit 
blocking and they do deserve to be there, also I dont recall ever using 
usernames like zyvvcvcx56 at domain but i spose they are legit usersnames , 
right...


> The only rbl of use (at smtp transaction time) is xbl. Anything else
> will drop legitimate mail, that is a fact.

wrong, you have no right to make blanket statements like this, no RBL is 
100% perfect, but then again in a perfect world we wouldn't need RBL's


> We host 16k domains, of which we're scanning around 5000 for spam and
> other nasties. We see 200k mails a day through mailscanner with a factor
> of 5 being rejected at smtp time by xbl.

m16K is a small drop in the ocean here, and we scan everything (why you 
only scan 1/3rd ill never know maybe you have spammer customers), for 
hosting or our dialup/broadband customer base, a review (as we do when we 
use any new tool to stop these moronic pricks who think they have the 
right to send repeat opt in/out mails, once only deals, blah blah blah) 
shows NO more risk using SC then SH or SORBS or rfcignorant, njabl or any 
others



-- 
Cheers
Res

"Just a world that we all must share, it's not enough just to stand and
stare, is it only a dream that there'll be no more turning away" - Floyd