There is no such things as "cholov stam". There's cholov yisroel, which is kosher, and cholov akum which is not. Cholov akum is treif, and any pot in which it was cooked is treif. End of story.
The only question is how to regard the commercial milk that we buy today, in sealed containers, in the supermarket. R Moshe Feinstein, in a series of teshuvot, developed a theory under which they count as cholov yisroel. If one accepts his theory as valid, then that milk is just as kosher as the milk from the Jewish firms. However, R Moshe himself, despite being confident enough of his reasoning to publish it, also advised that one who is careful with mitzvot should not rely on such a novel leniency. He himself did not rely on it, and he advised people to go out of their way to obtain "real" cholov yisroel if it's available, and to spend as much as $100 a year extra on this. He also ruled that since it is the job of Jewish schools to teach children to be careful in mitzvot, and not to rely on every leniency that comes along, schools must spend the extra money to provide "real" cholov yisroel.
Now if one accepts R Moshe's view completely, then commercial milk is cholov yisroel and therefore completely kosher; avoiding it is merely a recommended stringency. But if one rejects it, then commercial milk is just as treif as any cholov akum, and it makes pots in which it was cooked treif, just as any cholov akum does.
Where middle ground exists is with people who don't completely accept Reb Moshe's reasoning (lechatchila), but don't completely reject it either. They're not sure; maybe he was right, but maybe he wasn't. They won't drink commercial milk, because it might be treif. But when it comes to pots, that have probably not been used within a day, Reb Moshe's stance may be enough, in combination with all other considerations, to permit food cooked in them.
There's a further consideration: the classic case of the Benei Rhenus, the Rhineland Jews. There is a certain piece of fat that most authorities consider to be chelev, and therefore strictly forbidden. But there was one rishon (Rabbenu Yoel, if I recall correctly) who permitted that particular piece of fat, and in the Rhineland there were many who followed his opinion and ate it. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one may eat at the home of such Jews, without worrying that anything they cook in a fleishig pot may be treif. They are not to be regarded as flouting the laws of kashrut, and therefore inherently unreliable; they are following a legitimate opinion, though minority one, and are therefore part of the kosher-keeping community. As for their pots, one may rely on the assumption that they weren't used within 24 hours. The same logic surely applies to those who rely on R Moshe's leniency for commercial milk, even if one doesn't accept that leniency at all.
no subject
The only question is how to regard the commercial milk that we buy today, in sealed containers, in the supermarket. R Moshe Feinstein, in a series of teshuvot, developed a theory under which they count as cholov yisroel. If one accepts his theory as valid, then that milk is just as kosher as the milk from the Jewish firms. However, R Moshe himself, despite being confident enough of his reasoning to publish it, also advised that one who is careful with mitzvot should not rely on such a novel leniency. He himself did not rely on it, and he advised people to go out of their way to obtain "real" cholov yisroel if it's available, and to spend as much as $100 a year extra on this. He also ruled that since it is the job of Jewish schools to teach children to be careful in mitzvot, and not to rely on every leniency that comes along, schools must spend the extra money to provide "real" cholov yisroel.
Now if one accepts R Moshe's view completely, then commercial milk is cholov yisroel and therefore completely kosher; avoiding it is merely a recommended stringency. But if one rejects it, then commercial milk is just as treif as any cholov akum, and it makes pots in which it was cooked treif, just as any cholov akum does.
Where middle ground exists is with people who don't completely accept Reb Moshe's reasoning (lechatchila), but don't completely reject it either. They're not sure; maybe he was right, but maybe he wasn't. They won't drink commercial milk, because it might be treif. But when it comes to pots, that have probably not been used within a day, Reb Moshe's stance may be enough, in combination with all other considerations, to permit food cooked in them.
There's a further consideration: the classic case of the Benei Rhenus, the Rhineland Jews. There is a certain piece of fat that most authorities consider to be chelev, and therefore strictly forbidden. But there was one rishon (Rabbenu Yoel, if I recall correctly) who permitted that particular piece of fat, and in the Rhineland there were many who followed his opinion and ate it. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one may eat at the home of such Jews, without worrying that anything they cook in a fleishig pot may be treif. They are not to be regarded as flouting the laws of kashrut, and therefore inherently unreliable; they are following a legitimate opinion, though minority one, and are therefore part of the kosher-keeping community. As for their pots, one may rely on the assumption that they weren't used within 24 hours. The same logic surely applies to those who rely on R Moshe's leniency for commercial milk, even if one doesn't accept that leniency at all.