RB> From: "Robert Bononno" 

 RB> Yes, I'm on a dial-up. I checked the site and saw the
 RB> examples, but I also read the delisted part.

 RB> However, I did receive the following from the RCN newsgroup:
 RB> ===========================================================
 RB> SpamCop had implemented an experimental blocking list and
 RB> there seems to be a few bugs in it.  According to the posts,
 RB> SpamCop has a warning not to use this list in production, but
 RB> some sites have ignored the warning. The Abuse people at RCN
 RB> have also participated in the discussion, so they know about
 RB> the problem.
 RB> ===========================================================

yes... this is true... however, when a spammer uses an address in an ip
block used for dialup, the only real recourse to block them is to block the
whole ip block... i don't know how spamcop.net determines what addresses
that dialup block covers, though...

FWIW: i'm a long time and very happy user of spamcop.net... it has helped
me to cut my spam to practicaly nil...

)\/(ark

 RB> Mark.Lewis  wrote in message
 RB> news:9098e4.8c73e2{at}harborwebs.com...
>>

>> did you look here? that specific address, 207.172.4.62 is not listed but
>> that
>> entire block, 207.172.4.*, is blocked...
>>
>> http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=207.172.4.62
>>
>> it looks like it was delisted... are you on dialup? there are samples of
>> spam
>> from that address that do appear to be spam by their subject lines... check
>> that url i just gave and see...
>>
>> )\/(ark
>>

 RB> --- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
 RB> (1:379/1.45)