>>there's no question about "legit" - it isn't.
>>if you're having deliverability issues, you can
>>remove "apews" from your list of possible suspects.
>>
golden.net is certainly not on the standard list of "bad"
>>networks. leaving aside "apews" as just foolishness,
>>only uceprotect lists
golden.net "in bulk," and
>>uceprotect's penetration is only slightly greater than
>>that of "apews." if you're really seeing lots of
>>rejections, neither "apews" nor uceprotect are
>>the cause.
>
> Adam,
>
> UCEPROTECT is NOT APEWS, NOR is it related.
>
> UCEPROTECT has a very low false positive rate.
> Didn't you tell AL IVERSON would be a friend of you?
> Just ask him about UCEPROTECT FP-Rate, if you do not trust me.
>
> Probably you should google for uceprotect to get a clue of
> how many systems and which one's are using UCEPROTECT.
>
> If you need to send mail to locations in
> Germany, Austria or Switzerland, you can expect massive
> problems, if listed in UCEPROTECT.
> UCEPROTECT is haevy used there.
>
> In Austria UCEPROTECT is even more often used than SPAMHAUS.
> 3 big Austrian providers and countless companies are using UCEPROTECT.
>
> We also know some big providers in Belgium and Netherlands
> are using UCEPROTECT too.
>
> Even if you send mail to locations in UK or USA you will
> have some problems if listed in UCEPROTECT,
> but not so massive than in the German speaking parts of Europe.
>
> In Australia, you will have also massive problems,
> because
DNSBL.NET.AU imports UCEPROTECT-Level1,
> and
DNSBL.NET.AU is haevy used in Australia.
>
> Last not least:
> If you need to send mail to some of the big freemailers,
> (no i do not tell you which one) you can expect your mail
> to end up in the spam folder if listed in UCEPROTECT.
>
