https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6203
--- Comment #4 from Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 2009-09-17 11:23:18 PDT --- > the only issue is backwards compatibility -- a way to deal with existing > /16-using dbs is necessary.... That might be hard to achieve without doing another query when a tighter one fails to find any record. Is it worth it? The AWL database in my view is mostly throw-away in a sense that: it rebuilds fast enough on common correspondents, and throwing away seldom-used entries does more good than harm. (In reply to comment #3) > I personally like the /16 and don't see a reason to restrict it to /24. Please > note that a lot of spam is originating from wide dynamic address spaces of big > ISPs: with a /24 address in AWL a spammer could get a "virgin" ip address > simply by reconnecting... > > However, I do understand this is close to a matter of flavours. > > So why not add a configuration directive for this? By they way, keeping a > default of /16 there should be no risk of breaking things. No matter on which mask we decide, I don't think it should be configurable. Network topology of senders and their ISPs is not a matter of recipient's preference. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
