Both Mariano and Catherine make good points. If a domain appears in hams then we usually don't want to list it. OTOH if it appears in several different SURBL lists, then there's probably something wrong with it, and it's definitely appearing in spams.
Yeah.... The easiest explanation for this particular domain, I think, is that the domain owner is paying to advertise in a number of newsletters. The one that Mariano and I both get is COI. Others are spammed.
Does that make the domain a spamming domain? That depends on whether the domain owner is aware that some of the newsletters in which he's paying to advertise are spammed. That's hard to prove, but I have my suspicions.
Still, I think it might be a good idea to remove the listing for now. SURBL does have that pesky "no false positives" rule. <G> I also suspect that newsletters that are spammed can be caught by other means -- many of them come from IP blocks owned by the spammers, rather than via open proxies, and many of them contain unsubscribe links that point to the domains owned by the actual spammers.
Maybe Joe Wein or Raymond can comment since it's on JP.
<nod>
If you'd like, I can also put a flag on the spamtrap and see if I can grab emails that contain this URI. That might give us a better idea why it is showing up so widely in SURBL.