[SURBL-Discuss] Re: RFC: multi.surbl.org testpoint A record value
Frank Ellermann
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Wed Nov 2 07:44:23 CET 2005
Jeff Chan wrote:
> Does anyone have any comments or preferences for either
> style?
Why set bit 7 if there is no 7th set at the moment ? It
would be nice in my test output. OTOH I added support
for bits 8..15 a year ago because that's what you wanted,
and for that you could also use 127.0.255.126.
=== test output today (truncated) ===
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
127.0.0.2 (------10): .combined.njabl.org
127.0.0.2 (---43210): .opm.blitzed.org
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .multi.surbl.org
127.0.0.2 (-----21-): .sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
=== demo output for 127.0.0.126 ===
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
127.0.0.2 (------10): .combined.njabl.org
127.0.0.2 (---43210): .opm.blitzed.org
127.0.0.2 (7654321-): .multi.surbl.org
127.0.0.2 (-----21-): .sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
=== demo output for 127.0.255.126 ===
127.0.0.2 (------1-): .ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
127.0.0.2 (------10): .combined.njabl.org
127.0.0.2 (---43210): .opm.blitzed.org
127.0.0.2 (FEDBCA987654321-): .multi.surbl.org
127.0.0.2 (-----21-): .sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
These "aesthetical considerations" are just for fun,
if there are no more serious arguments at all. Bye
More information about the Discuss
mailing list