Bill Cole wrote:
The example still uses 127.0.0.1. It shouldn't, that IP is
never listed
False to fact.
Okay, add "normally", that's what I meant. A DNSBL of private
and reserved IPs is somewhat "special". Testing one I know:
2.0.0.127.combined-hib.dnsiplists.completewhois.com = 127.0.0.2
host: unknown host 1.0.0.127.combined-hib.dnsiplists.completewhois.com
For a list with 127.0.0.1 as potential entry 127.0.0.2 is most
probably no test entry, so that's IMHO really a "special" case,
where no "normal" conventions work as expected.
Was it Osirusoft, that ended with "all IPs listed" ? A sanity
test "127.0.0.1 not listed" could catch this condition.
and never returned as result.
I'm not sure 'never' is really true.
I'm sure, it's also only "normally" :-) A counter-example is
2.0.0.127.wadb.isipp.com = 127.0.0.1
It is never returned wisely, certainly.
Maybe the 127.0.0.1/31 issue should be added to the "security
considerations" (?)
It has been done intentionally by list maintainers as a test
record, without adequate appreciation for the depth of
cluelessness among their users.
Yes, that's what I wanted to express by "never" :-) The "fix"
s/1+2=3/2+4=6/ would replace the 127.0.0.1 example by 127.0.0.4
avoiding the critical bit 0.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg