[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 127.0.1.0 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 127.0.0.1.
More information about the Discuss
mailing list