https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6728
--- Comment #10 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-16 00:52:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > "I get this part. We should make URIBL.pm and EvalDNS.pm flag ignore > responses > outside of 127.0.0.1[sic] and possibly even trigger BLOCKED." > > YES! Definently trigger "blocked." ;-) Takes care of the registration > problem > too. So you want to trigger blocked for anything outside of 127.0.0/24 or 127/8? > "Here is where I get confused. Functional lists should explicitly return > 0.0.0.0 to what query?" > > ...To "query refused" (abuse/excessive traffic), if the proper DNS RC of > refused with 0 answers is not performed. I suggest "0.0.0.0" because it is > outside of 127/8 (see processing above) and "all zeros" means no information. > Returning "127.0.0.255" as some do is irresponsible. If they returned a code > outside of 127/8, all we'd need is the range checking code above. We're outside of my comfort zone with the standard-tracks for DNSBL but I am unsure why 127.0.0.255 is irresponsible in DNSWL's case because they don't use bitwise logic for their list. Anyway, why 0.0.0.0 as opposed to an explicitly valid answer defined as a Blocked answer? What's the benefit to the change? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
