[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: consensus list?

Jeff Chan 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
>> application.

> 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....

Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."



More information about the Discuss mailing list