https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6203
--- Comment #7 from Benny Pedersen <[email protected]> 2009-09-17 15:33:54 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > Right, but why /16 or /24, then? Why not /8? Or even, since it can be done, use /0 ? > why not /20?. /20 is hard to make simple in the patch > There is no evident reason and most depends by enviromental factors > like, in example, how much disk space devote to AWL. SSD harddisk are being cheap thease days :) > Or generally how /24 vs. /16 works fine to the user. the user dont know anything about how bad awl works for them, always just got a mean from the previous sender / ip space > The best solution would probably be to record the ISP's network address, which > is blatantly unfeasible. also pretty stypid since its the sender ip that are of intrest in the tracking > Other solutions (like the one AWL actually implements) > are, of course, a compromise and, as such, may be "compromised" the way one > likes... have you any data for this ?, or just guessing ?, start counting on the maillist how well awl works with /16 ? > Also I would stress the fact a configurable netmask for AWL with a > conservative default would save a headache to most SA users. why care ? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
