[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list
jeffc at surbl.org
Fri May 14 22:11:35 CEST 2004
On Friday, May 14, 2004, 8:06:46 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> 1 = comes from sc.surbl.org
>> 2 = comes from ws.surbl.org (and be.surbl.org)
>> 4 = comes from phishing list
> Nice, although I'd prefer 2, 4, 8, etc. without 1. 127.0.0.1
> pops up under the strangest conditions, it's better to leave
> it alone. I vaguely recall a case when 127.0.0.1 was on the
> SCBL and parts of the internet stopped to work ;-) Bye, Frank
In principle, this shouldn't be an issue since SURBLs should only
used on message bodies and not headers*, but perhaps we should
change to 2,4,8 to be safe and like other RBLs.
* If 127.0.0.1 appeared on a regular message-header-parsing RBL,
then I could see how that could potentially break things since
the loopback address can show up as a hop in mail processing.
(Numeric RBLs often start at .2 probably for that reason.)
Does anyone have any additional comments on this question?
More information about the Discuss