Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:48:10PM +1000, Jason Lim wrote:
> This is why Spamcop's collateral damage is much lower than others in
> that it does not block entire ranges, and which is why it is suitable
> for an ISP or Hosting company to use.
both of the above assertions are false.
spamcop does NOT have lower (let alone "much lower") collateral damage
than other RBL's - in fact, it has a MUCH HIGHER level of collateral
damage than professionally run RBLs.
Nor is it at all suitable for use by ISP or hosting companies. at best,
it might be suitable for use by a hobbyist who didn't care much about
collateral damage.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: