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