Comparison of some DNSBL results

No false positives to report this week, great because email was up to nearly double with all the Xmas communications including contacts so nice that it went smoothly. Use the spare time to put some usage statistics together;

DNSBL	%	Errors
l2.apews.org	95	0.5%
b.barracudacentral.org	94
* uceprotect.net 1,2 & 3	91	<0.2%
zen.spamhaus.org	91	<0.1%
ip.v4bl.org	68
cbl.abuseat.org	68	<0.1%
spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net	65
dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net	63	<0.1%
dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net	63	<0.2%
hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com	62
bl.tiopan.com	61
dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net	51	<0.1%
bl.mailspike.net	45
ix.dnsbl.manitu.net	44	1.5
truncate.gbudb.net	43
bl.spameatingmonkey.net	38
blackholes.five-ten-sg.com	37
bl.spamcop.net	31	<0.1%
psbl.surriel.com	18	<0.1%
db.upbl.info	14	<0.1%
dnsbl.imps.de	8
no-more-funn.moensted.dk	7	<0.1%
bl.spamcannibal.org	3
spam.spamrats.com	2	<0.1%
* does not exist as a single dnsbl, use 3 lists

That accords with our findings too, very respectable error rates before the use of a whitelist. Only Barracuda's system comes close and they require a free registration before you can access their data. You can use a combined result from all 3 lists at UCEProtect.net to achieve similar results though they do have lower error rates.

There are websites that offer a one-stop lookup service, like dnsbl.info, where you can input an IP address and see which blacklists have it listed. In their case, dnsbl.info test 80+ blacklists but do not include l2.apews.org which seems odd when you see the results above. Yet they show the results from other blacklists with more than double the error rate, odd that.