On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:51:50 +0200, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight

> John Rudd wrote:
>> LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 10-Jun-2007, at 16:54, Peter Pluta wrote:
>>>> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
>>>> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
>>>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>>>> reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
>>> Er, no. zen OR sbl-xbl. I've found spamcop to hit far too much ham
>>> for my tastes, and I never found that dsbl was hitting anything (or at
>>> least nothing that sbl-xbl (now zen) didn't already catch).

>> I do zen and dsbl, and dsbl catches about 1 for every 20 that zen
>> does. I do both _just_in_case_ there isn't perfect overlap.
>> I agree entirely about spamcop. Some people use it for spam marking,
>> which I am also leery about ... but it seems to me to be absolutely
>> insane to use spamcop for an actual block list.

> It's fine for scoring against, but blocking is insanity!

I tested SpamCop for our info@ address at work (about 200 messages a day)
and didn't get a single FP for six months.
I use it for blocking on our mailserver now (about 2000 accounts) and
haven't received any complaints so far.

This guy's stats seem to confirm my observations: