Its really an "educate the administrator" problem, as well as a top down (ceo/cio) mandate not to use overly broad lists.
For a very simple example.. this paragraph about a spammer from a note on AHBL website
http://www.ahbl.org/documents/kirch/...lease-scoville --
that the AHBL admits to using collateral damage entries, it is a key point in *not* using their lists, or not using their collateral lists.. if they have them as a separate item (haven't looked into AHBL other than to know I'd never use *them*).
The case of back-scatter is that "you", operating said SMTP server should not have accepted the message if it was invalid (ie. not verifying SPF record of sender) The problem however is that a 100% bonafide email can come from such a place, be valid and still be considered back-scatter.
So the admin using the back-scatter dnsbl is trying to force the sender's domain to do more to protect from bad incoming emails.. and again its a nice concept, but it only works to block more and more legitimate email ...
Sometimes making the users aware of the negative impact from their email admin's use of a bad DNSBL, is enough to force the admin to change their policy. The people that admin reports to are the ones that tell 'um - "don't block our incoming emails using that kind of policy" and in the end he/she is forced to acquiesce.
The end result, is to make sure you're doing what you can to limit what is invalid getting responded to, and to try to reach admins to tell them that you are doing the work, but that they are being too strict .. and to tell their users the same, so that their users can fight for you to the admin.
The short answer would be: Yes ... I use blacklists ... but I research them, and try not to use blacklists that are overly zealous in their goals of blocking spam. Every admin should approach DNSBL that way, it is a lazy or overly zealous nature of some admins that feed the problem.