https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6724
Darxus <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #13 from Darxus <[email protected]> 2011-12-13 18:35:19 UTC --- On the users list Dave Warren suggested checking a test value on the DNSxLs to determine if they should be used. I just wanted to point out there's some related stuff in an RFC: "IPv4-based DNSxLs MUST contain an entry for 127.0.0.2 for testing purposes. IPv4-based DNSxLs MUST NOT contain an entry for 127.0.0.1." - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5782#section-5 Maybe it would be appropriate to interpret intentional non-conformance with that as indication that you're being blocked, or for any other reason you should not use that list. Seems like it might be more useful to test for a value for 127.0.0.2 instead of a lack of a value for 127.0.0.1, so it would do the right thing if all queries are blocked. I'm not arguing for or against either method, just pointing out relevant contents of an RFC. I'm still curious where this state is going to get stored. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
