[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: consensus list?
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sun Nov 14 03:02:34 CET 2004
Jeff Chan wrote:
>> 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.
I don't have a tool to identify "odd IPs", I just see it <gd&r>
If SA can't do this Apache would die from a roaring RIDICULUS.
You could of course create a new list *.combo.surbl.org, and
(ab)use bit 0 in multi.surl.org as THE "combo bit". Same idea
as for all other individual lists.
> I have a feeling changing the second and third octets could
> break several programs.
It's not too bad with rxwhois, nobody uses it to delete mails,
and actually it would be only a bogus error message if you do
this. Breaking serious "multi" applications would be bad.
> But that's where the next lists need to go....
You don't need "multi" for testing, you could use the future
"combo" list for temporary test results 127.?.?.?. Bye, Frank
More information about the Discuss