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 affec=
t
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.=20=

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.=20


Also true, but we were discussing fuzzy content hashes, not DNSBLs.=20


/Per Jessen, Z=C3=BCrich