[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list ready

Jeff Chan 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

Thanks 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?

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list