Why not do all 3 private ip ranges?
10.0.0.0- 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
Ed
At 11:04 PM Thursday, 4/11/2002, Craig R Hughes wrote -=>
>dman wrote:
>
>d> Can the private cl
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:04:58PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Yes, no traces of https?://10\. in the spam corpus.
>
> Send me a patch and I'll apply.
If you're going to ignore the 10/8, you'll want to ignore 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 as
well.
aka:
https?://(?:10|192\.168|172\.(?:1[6-9]|2[0
dman wrote:
d> Can the private class-C be excluded from the NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP test?
Yes, no traces of https?://10\. in the spam corpus.
Send me a patch and I'll apply.
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge
Can the private class-C be excluded from the NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP test?
I just had two non-spam messages tagged, and that test (scored 2.5)
easily pushed it over the threshold (just 1.3 over). These particular
messages included an ip-literal url in the body, but it is a private
address and is part
