Jeff Chan wrote:
I don't think we should list spamarrest because there could be legitimate users of it
That would be like a "legitimate user of illegal drugs". Or a legitimate buyer of generic viagra.
that could easily lead to false positives
There are no "false positives". The spamarrest challenges are spam, triggered by spam to spamarrest customers, and sent to the forged addresses in the original spam. Spamarrest.com is only interested to sell more of their snake oil, and as far as I'm concerned it's a criminal organization.
Complete with "webmaster affiliate program", exactly the same kind of marketing you find in XXX sites. Only the "product" is different, it's "spam filtering". The real work is not done by spamarrest, it's done by my ISP and me (for all forged @xyzzy addresses), or by your ISP and you (for all forged @surbl.org addresses), etc.
Spamarrest.com "sells" your and my bandwidth + harddisk space + time. There are no "legitimate users" or "false positives", it's theft.
their design is broken, but having a broken design is not enough reason to list them.
It's not only "broken", it's fraudulent. It's no free service, their users pay for this design, and what they really pay for are _our_ resources.
See also http://openrbl.org/ip/66/150/163/156.htm for other BL entries for the IP [66.150.163.156] in my example.
Bye, Frank