https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6220
--- Comment #26 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-12-12 20:59:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) > "No, because that refused code is non-standard." ??? Huh? Excuse me: > > It's defined in standards-track RFC documents (2929 section 2.3, 2136 section > 2.2, 1035 section 4.1.1 [24 years old], 883 page 27 [28 years old]), and > several other RFCs too. RFC 1035 is marked as an accepted standard. > > If you're saying that DNS lists aren't using the code, that's their problem, > not SA's. Does SA handle the code properly when presented or not? > > RFC 5782 indicates that any DNS based list should return a value in > 127.0.0.0/8 > (even for IPv6 lists). It is further noted that such lists, when their > domains > expire, often return values outside of this range when a registrar holds the > domain open for sale. Therefore, I don't see why you think that's a problem > too.... Every valid DNS list will return values in 127/8 or none at all. I am referring to a "standard" regarding what answer to give back for a "refusing to answer due to over-quota". -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
