Rob McEwen wrote: > 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.
OK, that is true of course. The knowledge of the details does not affect the 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.) I wasn't actually making any assumptions about the quality or lack of it, that would not make any sense. I was really only concerned with the trust issue, which I still say is paramount when it comes to spam. And I don't believe you can establish trust by withholding or hiding information. > Additionally, absent additional checks (i.e. FP-prevention filters), > pure honeypot addresses don't necessarily make for a good DNSBL. Also true, but we were discussing fuzzy content hashes, not DNSBLs. /Per Jessen, Zürich
