bl.spamcop.net blocking IPs that are not listed

[blazius]

A mail with these headers was held yesterday:

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101) by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 13 Apr 2005 09:20:00 -0000
Received: from webmail4.activeisp.com (HELO mailweb2.web2000.activeisp.com) (213.188.134.20) by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 13 Apr 2005 09:20:00 -0000
Received: from servicemail.no (unverified [127.0.0.1]) by webmail.activeisp.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.17) with ESMTP id <B0002383695[at]localhost>; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:19:59 +0200
Message-ID: <xxx[at]servicemail.no>
From: <xxx[at]servicemail.no>
To: xxx[at]spamcop.net
Subject: xxx
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:19:59 +0200
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on blade1
X-spam-Level: *
X-spam-Status: hits=1.9 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,J_CHICKENPOX_36,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART,PRIORITY_NO_NAME version=3.0.0
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 213.188.134.20 
X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked bl.spamcop.net

Neither 192.168.1.101 or 213.188.134.20 were listed when looking them up at http://mailsc.spamcop.net/bl.shtml, and the SpamAssassin score is well below my treshold.

What is happening here...?

[Wazoo]

The 192.168 ... IP is a non-routable metwork address, so is not actually involved. The IP of 213.188.134.20 is also currently not listed in the SCBL, so I can only conjecture that it was at the time this e-mail showed up and has since aged off the BL ... The Forum FAQ includes links to the data behind how the SCBL works, noting the dynamic nature of this particular BL.