[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: consensus list?
jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Nov 14 02:06:31 CET 2004
On Saturday, November 13, 2004, 4:37:26 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> That kind of combination needs to be done by creating a
>> new list on the data side, or special processing in the
> Or by adding bit 0 on your side for THE one "optimal rule":
> 85,87, 93,95, 117,119, 125,127 (= same 8, now bit 0 is set)
But that's more than one list (i.e. more than one number...).
We probably need a given combination to be a single list,
for maximum compatibility.
> But don't touch the zeros in 127.0.0.? without warning, it
> would break my poor <http://purl.net/xyzzy/src/rxwhois.cmd> :
> | if SockGetHostByName( arg(1) || arg(2), 'P.' ) then do
> | if abbrev( P.ADDR, '127.0.0.' ) | abbrev( P.ADDR, '127.1.0.' )
> | then say arg(3) '(' || substr( P.ADDR, 9 ) || '):' arg(2)
> | else say 'erroneous result' P.ADDR 'for' arg(1) || arg(2)
> | return 1
> | end /* 127.1.0.1 .. 127.1.0.7 for .opm.blitzed.org(1+2+4) */
> | return 0
> Bye, Frank
I have a feeling changing the second and third octets could break
several programs. But that's where the next lists need to go....
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
More information about the Discuss