In message <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904261200200.8945-100000@???
.uk>, Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@???> wrote:
>Yes, I wish that the DUL and the DSSL people would work together better;
Well, we get along fine with them, but as I said, they are using what
amounts to an larger version of my own first-generation dialups list
mechanism. They have a somewhat bigger list than the one that I
first developed, but there are a number of inherent problems with
trying to rely totally on just IP address ranges for this kind of
a list. For one thing, when new dialups are added by some ISP,
those new lines are typically NOT covered by the MAPS DUL for some
time, but if they follow that ISP's old naming convention for dialups
(which they aften do) then they are _automatically_ and instantly
covered by the DSSL. Likewise if the ISP moves its dialups to a new
IP address block (i.e. ``renumbering''). This is handled automatically
by the DSSL, but requires manual intervention/maintenance in the case
of the MAPS DUL. Last byt not least, there is the thorny problem of
the many ISPs who have dialup lines interspersed with servers within
their IP address blocks. The MAPS DUL cannot handle this well at all,
but it is a ``no brainer'' to handle this case with the DSSL.
>... I will change the
>order so that I do DSSL first, and then if I don't get any hits on DUL,
>I'll drop it.
Please let me know the outcome of this experiment.
I would be willing to bet that the DSSL is in fact a proper superset of
the MAPS DUL.... i.e. everything that's in the MAPS DUL is also already
in the DSSL, and lots lots more.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
