>Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is >appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution. There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent, but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter. There are a few that are competent and have very low error rates. They, not surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses. When I say everyone, I mean it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the alternatives. In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to twiddle things beyond that. R's, John PS: >> We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance >> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic >> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass. I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of systems with malicious participants. It's not unrelated to the observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you as a member.