https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6203
--- Comment #8 from Giampaolo Tomassoni <[email protected]> 2009-09-17 17:22:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > > 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 You would suggest a /32, then. For the sake of AWL, the best tradeoff between db size and source identification is using the smallest assigned netblock to which the source ip belongs. Ham and spam from a given source not always are from the very same ip, but often are from the same netblock. This is due also to the fact that many "hammers" and spammers connect through a dynamic address. Or because they are using a cluster of MTAs which are connected through the same bunch. Thereby, a /32 is not only an overkill, but also a way to get a less useful AWL. That said, the question are then: 1) is a /24 AWL really a better choice than the /16 we are used to? 2) would the not-yet-proven advantages of a more exact source identification overcame the headaches? > > 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 ? Not guessing. I'm exposing a fact about how AWL is supposed to work. Do you have numbers to say /24 is better than /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 ? Of course, what else. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
