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

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Tue Sep 21 01:18:12 CEST 2004

On Monday, September 20, 2004, 12:51:43 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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

Not sure what you mean by "sets" in this case.  Perhaps you
mean a combination of lists.  I think the bits in other octets
(bytes) would be used simply to identify different lists, like
those currently used in the last octet.

By the way, does anyone have any more comments about breaking
out the JP data as a separate list?

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list