jeffc at surbl.org
Thu May 13 03:00:49 CEST 2004
On Thursday, May 13, 2004, 1:01:01 AM, David Hooton wrote:
> How about surbl.surbl.org? Being the primary rbl, this kinda makes sense :)
> Also on the other points about how to respond - I suggest the different IP
> per list as being smartest the octet based response is too non-specific.
Both ways are specific. The multiple A record response would
give a separate address for each corresponding list. The
bitmasked response has a distinct bit set in the returned
address for each list. A 3 means bits 1 and 2 are set,
corresponding to those the lists in the 1 and 2 positions.
Its true that the bitmask approach gives only 1 query result,
even for inclusion in multiple lists though.
> This only leaves the question on how do we handle multiple listings :)
I assume you're referring to how the client handles the
multiple or bitmasked responses.
More information about the Discuss