https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6203
--- Comment #6 from Benny Pedersen <[email protected]> 2009-09-17 15:22:01 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > When I chose /16, it seemed "safe enough". I'm quite open to restricting it > to > /24. > > the only issue is backwards compatibility -- a way to deal with existing > /16-using dbs is necessary.... in 3.3 it can be an option to still use /16 but for 3.4 go for /24 that way users have time to migrade or get time to see how bad /24 works :) but for me its worth to use /24 to minimize forged senders ip space, if /24 scarry to much lets think about dkim, and spf as helpers to reduce the more ip listed in awl db table but if dkim spf auth is used it most not just being i use dkim spf auth so my ip is clean -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
