[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Prolocation data

Frank Ellermann nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Mon Sep 20 21:51:43 CEST 2004

Jeff Chan wrote:

> Christer Borang wrote:
>> Shouldn't it be possible to use the second and third field
>> as well?  For example, multi for an eightth list?
>> Of course, some code would need changes...

AFAIK nobody does this for sets.  The iadb.isipp.org codes use
bits in three octets, but not for sets.  OPM uses the fixed
format 127.0.1.* for seven sets.  Maybe the 1 is meant as the
version (just an idea).

> Yes, the additional 16 bits in the other two octets should
> be available for other lists, though I doubt we'll get that
> many.

Christer's idea of _23_ instead of _7_ sets is nice, but as he
said, my script couldn't handle it without some modification.
And for this modification OPM's strange 127.0.1.* would be
(again) a special case.
                          Bye, Frank

P.S.:  Another possible explanation for 127.0.1.*, it allows
       _8_ instead of _7_ sets without conflict with

More information about the Discuss mailing list