Per Jessen said: > I beg to differ. I have to have _some_ idea about the data I'm using > for my filtering. Personally, I can't use your "suck it and see" > approach.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with your curiosity and I definitely understand that how a list gets its data and what steps it takes to ensure minimal to none FPs is important and can impact how a list is used and who might benefit from the list. But I think that my point was more that **results** matter **more** and one's lack of knowing the details about how a list works doesn't impact that list's quality. It is your right to not trust a dnsbl if you don't have enough information, but it is a mistake to assume that it must be bad if **you** don't understand it (I'm not sure that this was your original point, but I say this to be sure.) Additionally, absent additional checks (i.e. FP-prevention filters), pure honeypot addresses don't necessarily make for a good DNSBL. For example, some spammers who send to harvested addresses send via their ISP's "shared" mail server. Also, honeypot-driven dnsbls are starting to miss some of the more shrewd spammers who have learned well how to listwash and/or are more shrewd in how they gather their addresses in the first place. Rob McEwen PowerView Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
