https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6362
Justin Mason <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #6 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2010-03-04 00:18:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > > > 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. the initial plan was for "real" DBL listings to use 127.0.1.2, and the "don't do that" listings for all IP address lookups to use 127.0.0.2. Given that, masking with 127.0.1.0 would allow us to not match on the "don't do that" listings, while matching the "real" listings. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
