https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6362
--- Comment #4 from Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 2010-03-03 23:20:35 UTC --- > > Decimal for 0x7f000100, i.e. 127.0.1.0 mask. > I presume a netmask for the above would be 128.255.254.255 which looks much > more reasonable than decimal or hex notation. Back to the original question: why was the mask chosen as 127.0.1.0, i.e. why clear the first bit, why clear the second byte (from left), and why clear all but the last bit in the third byte? Seems to me the whole mask logic was not well thought out. Perhaps we'd need two parameters: a mask, and an IPv4 address to match the result against, as is usual with ACL and similar network settings. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
