In
<Pine(_dot_)BSF(_dot_)4(_dot_)58(_dot_)0403031929200(_dot_)3573(_at_)gull(_dot_)us>
David Brodbeck <gull(_at_)gull(_dot_)us> writes:
That may be so, but I've had really bad experiences with blacklists.
Yep, many people have had bad experiences with DNSBLs. On the other
hand, many people have had bad experiences with spam. As a result,
people are being turned off from using both DNSBLs and email. :-<
One site I use has been repeatedly blacklisted by Spamcop.
Of the major DNSBLs, SpamCop is probably right behind SPEWS in terms
of how aggressive it is about listing stuff. Unlike SPEWS, I actually
use SpamCop's DNSBL as part of my SpamAssassin scoring. There are
certainly false positives, by it catches a ton of spam.
It seems that if
you're a small site it only takes *one* spam-like message being submitted
to Spamcop to get you listed,
SpamCop requires at least two reports from at least two different
people before it will list an IP address.
and the only recourse you have is to wait
and hope that eventually they automatically delist you.
If a SpamCop user submitted an email that wasn't spam, you can get the
site delisted right away and the user will be either warned, fined or
banned, depending on how bad the situation is.
Every blacklist
I've seen seems to take this "too bad, sucks to be you" attitude towards
incorrect information in their lists. This has turned me off on the whole
approach. (Well, that and the way ORBS used to spam my postmaster account
with their tests.)
I can understand that, but there is also very clear proof that many
ISPs will not do anything about spam until they get listed on these
DNSBLs. It is also very clear that, when used carefully, DNSBLs can
be a very important tool in reducing the amount of spam in your inbox.
-wayne