On Sunday, January 30, 2005, 8:03:37 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Oh crap. It's *me* that's confused and I'm sure I'll get 5 replies from people who don't read all their mail before sending replies telling me that. Anyway, disregard my last message.
Adding JP to WS was clearly a horrible idea to begin with. However, wasting a bit on this is silly (and I think that's what I'm reacting to here), especially considering that Henry and I have been discussing a revamp of the SURBL rules where source would not matter and the number of bits set would matter -- we'd have to special case this.
Not to worry, I had to remove my foot from my mouth before I could speak too. ;-)
I think we have all the cases covered. After we remove JP from WS, anyone lacking a separate JP rule and not upgrading to 3.1 can simply add a JP rule, as we've advised from the beginning of JP. It's just that such a change did not get into the 3.0 release.
Jeff C.