Phil Pennock wrote:
>> Huh? Which list? The only list involved here is dnslists, and there's no
>> ipv6 address given.
> (2) There clearly is an IPv6 address given, since the default lookup
> value is $sender_host_address which, in the given case, was IPv6.
So you think $sender_host_address is implicitly added to the dnslist
entries, then expanded and then again split by the list separator? I
don't think so.
>> It seems that the used dnslist server simply takes the first 4 elements,
>> which in most (if not all) cases will be 2.0.0.1. I would consider that
>> a flaw.
> No, it's worse than that, since it complained about the IP address
> "2.0.0.0" for an IP address in 2001::/8; Randy posted:
Probably because the message simply prints the blocks network address,
which happens to be 2.0.0.0. But that's only wild guessing and (as you
pointed out) totally Randy's problem (and his customers).
