Am 24.08.2012 13:18, schrieb Matthew Powell: > On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote: > >> I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us >> anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will >> require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem like >> the prudent thing to do. > > I wonder whether it would be better to make the exclusion list configurable. > > As I understand it, the intention is to avoid treating connections through a > load balancer or proxy as though they're the same client device
i doubt the ip is generally the wrong value to define something is the same client device, there are millions of networks behind NAT out there with a lot of clients usually connecting to the same mailserver via the same public IP and many of them have a workstation beside a mobile device using the same IMAP account the same device = open connection, nothing else > The assumption that private address = proxy is a fair default in my opinion this is generally the wrong direction i do NOT like it when server software behaves different from my private LAN where services are tested than later after making the service public from the WAN
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature