On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:14:21 -0400 Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote: > > LuKreme wrote: > > > > Of course, first, or last depends on your perspective. I assume RW > > was thinking of "first" from a "starting at the inside, working > > backwards in time" approach. This is backwards, if you think about > > the chronology of the headers, like SA does. However, it makes > > sense from a "I'm at my server looking outward at the world" point > > of view that most folks work from when thinking about network > > topologies. > > Darnit, I should have checked before sending. > > The AWL uses the LAST non-private.. Maybe one of us is reading the perl wrong (and it could well be me), or we are talking at cross purposes. As I see it, it's going through the list of IP address, starting with the mail client and working its way towards the SA Server. When it finds a routable IP address it sets origip and breaks-out of the loop. By your cronological definition of first and last (which is the same as mine), that's the the FIRST non-private address. It makes sense to me, if I send you an email, the AWL entry should use my IP address not a random gmail server. > This is, IMO, completely broken. Why are we allowing folks to declare > internal_networks if we're not going to use it, and assume the last > non-private is "external". (which, mind you, is different from what > the trust-path guesser does. It assumes that IP is your MX.)
